Federal Register Vol. 80, No.40,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 40 (March 2, 2015)

Page Range11077-11316
FR Document

80_FR_40
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 11202 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
80 FR 11166 - Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative ReviewsPDF
80 FR 11155 - Foreign-Trade Subzone 83D-Decatur, Alabama; Authorization of Production Activity; General Electric Company (Household Refrigerators)PDF
80 FR 11156 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 74-Baltimore, Maryland; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Mercedes Benz USA, LLC; (Accessorizing Motor Vehicles); Baltimore, MarylandPDF
80 FR 11156 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 144-Brunswick, Georgia; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Mercedes Benz USA, LLC (Accessorizing Motor Vehicles); Brunswick, GeorgiaPDF
80 FR 11172 - Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2012PDF
80 FR 11155 - Notice of the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Subtropical Agricultural Research Station Land TransferPDF
80 FR 11122 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NCPDF
80 FR 11164 - Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) ReviewPDF
80 FR 11257 - Ninety-Third Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 159, Global Positioning Systems (GPS)PDF
80 FR 11106 - Revocation of Restricted Area R-2936, West Palm Beach, FLPDF
80 FR 11239 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 11106 - Amendment of Restricted Areas R-3801A, R-3801B, and R-3801C; Camp Claiborne, LAPDF
80 FR 11315 - Notice of Inquiry: Request for Comments Regarding Controls on Military Aircraft and Military Gas Turbine Engines on the Commerce Control ListPDF
80 FR 11236 - Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit 2PDF
80 FR 11313 - Notice of Inquiry; Request for Comments Regarding Review of United States Munitions List Categories VIII and XIXPDF
80 FR 11107 - Amendment of Restricted Area Boundary Descriptions; Cape Canaveral, FLPDF
80 FR 11220 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Resource Management Plan and Associated Environmental Impact Statement for the San Juan Islands National MonumentPDF
80 FR 11233 - Duke Energy Florida, Inc.; Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating PlantPDF
80 FR 11145 - Safety Zone; Xterra Swim, Myrtle Beach, SCPDF
80 FR 11126 - Safety Zone; Cooper River Bridge Run, Cooper River, and Town Creek Reaches, Charleston, SCPDF
80 FR 11159 - President's Export Council Subcommittee on Export Administration; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 11184 - List of Correspondence From October 1, 2013, Through December 31, 2013PDF
80 FR 11123 - Safety Zone; Moon Island-Long Island Bridge Demolition; Boston Inner Harbor, Quincy Bay; Quincy, MAPDF
80 FR 11128 - Safety and Security Zones, Jacksonville Captain of the Port ZonePDF
80 FR 11171 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset ReviewsPDF
80 FR 11154 - Renewal of Charter of the USAID Board for International Food and Agricultural DevelopmentPDF
80 FR 11161 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative ReviewPDF
80 FR 11163 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2012PDF
80 FR 11160 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013PDF
80 FR 11122 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CAPDF
80 FR 11214 - Privacy Act of 1974; Department of Homeland Security United States Immigration Customs and Enforcement-011 Immigration and Enforcement Operational Records System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 11213 - Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Cybersecurity Education and Awareness (CE&A) National Initiative for Cybersecurity Careers and Studies (NICCS) Cybersecurity Scholarships, Internships, Camps, Clubs, and Competitions CollectionPDF
80 FR 11159 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Statement by Ultimate Consignee and PurchaserPDF
80 FR 11156 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Licensing Responsibilities and EnforcementPDF
80 FR 11219 - Announcement of Availability of Notice on Required Actions for Multifamily Housing Projects Receiving Failing Scores From HUD's Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC)PDF
80 FR 11157 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Request for Investigation Under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion ActPDF
80 FR 11158 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Miscellaneous Short Supply ActivitiesPDF
80 FR 11186 - Wind and Water Power Technologies Office; Notice of a MeetingPDF
80 FR 11263 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals; Proposed Collection of Information: Application by Voluntary Guardian of Incapacitated Owner of United States Savings Bonds or Savings NotesPDF
80 FR 11185 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New MexicoPDF
80 FR 11210 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; The Genetic Testing RegistryPDF
80 FR 11208 - Announcement of Requirements and Registration for “A Wearable Alcohol Biosensor” ChallengePDF
80 FR 11224 - Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy; Institution of a Five-Year ReviewPDF
80 FR 11240 - Proposed Submission of Information Collection for OMB Review; Comment Request; Annual Reporting (Form 5500 Series)PDF
80 FR 11262 - Notice and Request for CommentsPDF
80 FR 11175 - Hydrographic Services Review Panel MeetingPDF
80 FR 11221 - Preserved Mushrooms From Chile, China, India, and Indonesia; Institution of Five-Year ReviewsPDF
80 FR 11205 - World War One Centennial Commission; Notification of Upcoming Public Advisory MeetingPDF
80 FR 11175 - Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 11226 - Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From China; Institution of a Five-Year ReviewPDF
80 FR 11192 - Adam Robert Rousselle, II; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing ApplicationsPDF
80 FR 11189 - Lock 14 Hydro Partners, LLC and Lock 12 Hydro Partners, LLC; Notice of Availability of Environmental AssessmentPDF
80 FR 11186 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
80 FR 11187 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 11189 - Marathon Pipe Line LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory OrderPDF
80 FR 11192 - Orlando Utilities Commission; Notice of FilingPDF
80 FR 11205 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Information Collection; Davis Bacon Act-Price Adjustment (Actual Method)PDF
80 FR 11111 - Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Regulations; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 11232 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for CommentsPDF
80 FR 11077 - Professional Standards for State and Local School Nutrition Programs Personnel as Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010PDF
80 FR 11157 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Request for the Appointment of a Technical Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 11183 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Student Assistance General Provisions-Subpart A-GeneralPDF
80 FR 11185 - Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee; MeetingPDF
80 FR 11138 - NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NFS); Contractor Whistleblower ProtectionsPDF
80 FR 11242 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 11243 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 11193 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 11175 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 11176 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 11211 - Current List of HHS-Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities Which Meet Minimum Standards To Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal AgenciesPDF
80 FR 11139 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder Fishery; Quota TransferPDF
80 FR 11178 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Recording AssignmentsPDF
80 FR 11141 - Determination of Adjusted Applicable Federal Rates Under Section 1288 and the Adjusted Federal Long-Term Rate Under Section 382PDF
80 FR 11178 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request; “Rules for Patent Maintenance Fees”PDF
80 FR 11241 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 11206 - Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews (SDRR), Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or the Advisory Board), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)PDF
80 FR 11174 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 11177 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingsPDF
80 FR 11188 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 11189 - Eagle LNG Partners Jacksonville LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Jacksonville Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping MeetingPDF
80 FR 11202 - Novartis AG; Analysis of Proposed Consent Orders To Aid Public CommentPDF
80 FR 11196 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 11195 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 11197 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 11194 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 11254 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule Under Exchange Rule 7018(a) and (e) With Respect to Transactions in Securities Priced at $1 per Share or MorePDF
80 FR 11246 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to CDS Procedures for CDX North America Index CDS ContractsPDF
80 FR 11201 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
80 FR 11197 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
80 FR 11243 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Discontinue the Prospectus Repository System ServicePDF
80 FR 11244 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate Rule 13.4, “Assigning of Registered Securities in the Name of a Member or Member Organization”PDF
80 FR 11250 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Eliminate Rule 13.4, “Assigning of Registered Securities in the Name of a Member or Member Organization”PDF
80 FR 11252 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Concerning the Use of Market Data Feeds by the ExchangePDF
80 FR 11256 - Government/Industry Aeronautical Charting Forum MeetingPDF
80 FR 11211 - National Cancer Institute Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 11211 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 11177 - Marine Mammals; File No. 19293PDF
80 FR 11231 - Comment Request for Information Collection for Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) Program (OMB No. 1205-0371), Extension Without Revisions of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
80 FR 11230 - Comment Request for Information Collection for OMB 1205-0430, Resource Justification Model (RJM); Extension With RevisionsPDF
80 FR 11229 - Comment Request for Information Collection for OMB 1205-0010, ETA 5159, Claims and Payment Activities Report; Extension Without ChangePDF
80 FR 11148 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assembly AnchoragesPDF
80 FR 11257 - Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft Prevention Standard; General Motors CorporationPDF
80 FR 11202 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 11108 - Policy Regarding Datalink Communications Recording RequirementsPDF
80 FR 11198 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
80 FR 11199 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
80 FR 11181 - General Electric Company, Provisional Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement and OrderPDF
80 FR 11259 - Ford Motor Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
80 FR 11261 - General Motors, LLC; Ruling on Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
80 FR 11148 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; Transportation ConformityPDF
80 FR 11133 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; Transportation ConformityPDF
80 FR 11136 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Carolina; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF
80 FR 11131 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Mississippi; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF
80 FR 11206 - Request for Public Comment: 60-Day Notice for Extension of Fast Track Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery: IHS Customer Service Satisfaction and Similar SurveysPDF
80 FR 11140 - Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Turbofan EnginesPDF
80 FR 11113 - Safety Standard for Frame Child CarriersPDF
80 FR 11265 - Health and Human Services Acquisition RegulationPDF
80 FR 11096 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 11101 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF

Issue

80 40 Monday, March 2, 2015 Contents Agency Agency for International Development NOTICES Charter Renewals: International Food and Agricultural Development Board, 11154 2015-04276 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Food and Nutrition Service

NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Subtropical Agricultural Research Station Land Transfer, 11155 2015-04302
Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Meetings: Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, 11206 2015-04210 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC, 11122-11123 2015-04301 Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA, 11122 2015-04267 Safety and Security Zones: Jacksonville Captain of the Port Zone, 11128-11131 2015-04280 Safety Zones: Cooper River Bridge Run, Cooper River, and Town Creek Reaches, Charleston, SC, 11126-11128 2015-04286 Moon Island—Long Island Bridge Demolition, Boston Inner Harbor, Quincy Bay, Quincy, MA, 11123-11126 2015-04282 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: Xterra Swim, Myrtle Beach, SC, 11145-11148 2015-04287 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission RULES Safety Standard for Frame Child Carriers, 11113-11122 2015-03717 NOTICES Provisional Acceptances of Settlement Agreements and Orders: General Electric Co., 11181-11183 2015-04154 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Acquisition Regulation; Davis Bacon Act—Price Adjustment (Actual Method), 11205 2015-04238 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Student Assistance General Provisions—Subpart A—General, 11183-11184 2015-04232 List of Correspondence from October 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013, 11184-11185 2015-04283 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Work Opportunity Tax Credit Program, 11231-11232 2015-04166 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office

See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Meetings: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New Mexico, 11185 2015-04256
Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES Meetings: Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee; Correction, 11185-11186 2015-04231 Wind and Water Power Technologies Office; Merit Review for the Atmosphere to Electrons Initiative, 11186 2015-04258 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Mississippi; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality, 11131-11133 2015-04140 Ohio; Transportation Conformity, 11133-11136 2015-04146 South Carolina—Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality, 11136-11138 2015-04142 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Ohio; Transportation Conformity, 11148 2015-04148 Export Import Export-Import Bank NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Exporter Short Term Single Buyer Insurance, 11193 2015-04220 Application for Financial Institution Short-Term, Single-Buyer Insurance, 11196-11197 2015-04194 Application for Issuing Bank Credit Limit under Lender or Exporter-Held Policies, 11193-11194 2015-04195 Application for Long Term Loan or Guarantee, 11194 2015-04191 Application for Medium Term Insurance or Guarantee, 11194-11195 2015-04190 Application for Short-Term Express Credit Insurance Policy, 11196 2015-04197 Report of Premiums Payable for Financial Institutions Only, 11195 2015-04196 Short-Term Multi-Buyer Export Credit Insurance Policy Applications, 11197 2015-04193 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 11096-11106 2015-02676 2015-02692 Policy Regarding Datalink Communications Recording Requirements, 11108-11111 2015-04158 Restricted Areas: Amendment of Boundary Descriptions, Cape Canaveral, FL; Correction, 11107-11108 2015-04290 Amendment of R-3801A, R-3801B, and R-3801C, Camp Claiborne, LA, 11106-11107 2015-04294 Revocation of R-2936, West Palm Beach, FL, 11106 2015-04296 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Pratt and Whitney Turbofan Engines, 11140-11141 2015-04059 NOTICES Meetings: Government/Industry Aeronautical Charting Forum, 11256-11257 2015-04177 RTCA Special Committee 159, Global Positioning Systems, 11257 2015-04297 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 11197-11202 2015-04156 2015-04157 2015-04185 2015-04186 2015-04187 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 11202 2015-04374 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 11186-11189 2015-04207 2015-04241 2015-04242 Declaratory Orders; Petitions: Marathon Pipe Line LLC, 11189 2015-04240 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Lock 14 Hydro Partners, LLC; Lock 12 Hydro Partners, LLC, 11189 2015-04243 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Planned Jacksonville Project, Eagle LNG Partners Jacksonville LLC, 11189-11192 2015-04206 Filings: Orlando Utilities Commission, 11192 2015-04239 Preliminary Permit Applications: Adam Robert Rousselle, II, 11192-11193 2015-04244 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 11202 2015-04159 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Proposed Consent Agreements: Novartis AG; Analysis of Orders to Aid Public Comment, 11202-11204 2015-04205 Fiscal Fiscal Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application by Voluntary Guardian of Incapacitated Owner of United States Savings Bonds or Savings Notes, 11263 2015-04257 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service RULES Professional Standards for State and Local School Nutrition Programs Personnel; Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, 11077-11096 2015-04234 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Production Activitiy Authorizations: General Electric Co., Foreign-Trade Subzone 83D, Decatur, AL, 11155-11156 2015-04344 Proposed Production Activities: Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, Foreign-Trade Zone 144, Brunswick, GA, 11156 2015-04342 Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, Foreign-Trade Zone74, Baltimore, MD, 11156 2015-04343 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Acquisition Regulation; Davis Bacon Act—Price Adjustment (Actual Method), 11205 2015-04238 Meetings: World War One Centennial Commission, 11205-11206 2015-04247 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Indian Health Service

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

PROPOSED RULES Acquisition Regulations, 11266-11311 2015-03391
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Initiative for Cybersecurity Careers and Studies; Scholarships, Internships, Camps, Clubs and Competitions, 11213-11214 2015-04265 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 11214-11219 2015-04266
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Required Actions for Multifamily Housing Projects Receiving Failing Scores from Real Estate Assessment Center, 11219-11220 2015-04261 Indian Health Indian Health Service See

Indian Health Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance for Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, Customer Service Satisfaction and Similar Surveys, 11206-11208 2015-04112
Industry Industry and Security Bureau PROPOSED RULES Controls on Military Aircraft and Military Gas Turbine Engines on the Commerce Control List, 11315-11316 2015-04293 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Appointment of a Technical Advisory Committee, 11157 2015-04233 Licensing Responsibilities and Enforcement, 11156-11157 2015-04262 Miscellaneous Short Supply Activities, 11158 2015-04259 Request for Investigation under the Trade Expansion Act, 11157-11158 2015-04260 Statement by Ultimate Consignee and Purchaser, 11159 2015-04263 Meetings: President's Export Council Subcommittee on Export Administration, 11159 2015-04285 Interior Interior Department See

Land Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Adjusted Applicable Federal Rates and Adjusted Federal Long-Term Rate, 11141-11145 2015-04213 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Advance Notification of Sunset Reviews, 11171-11172 2015-04278 Certain Pasta from Italy, 11172-11174 2015-04340 Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 11164-11166 2015-04300 January Anniversary Dates, 11166-11171 2015-04346 Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 11161-11163 2015-04275 Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India, 11160-11161, 11163-11164 2015-04273 2015-04274 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from China, 11226-11229 2015-04245 Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia, 11221-11224 2015-04248 Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy; Five-Year Review, 11224-11226 2015-04252 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Claims and Payment Activities Report, 11229 2015-04164 Resource Justification Model, 11230-11231 2015-04165
Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: San Juan Islands National Monument, 11220-11221 2015-04289 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration RULES NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Contractor Whistleblower Protections, 11138-11139 2015-04227 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Acquisition Regulation; Davis Bacon Act—Price Adjustment (Actual Method), 11205 2015-04238 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Records Schedules: Availability, 11232-11233 2015-04235 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, 11148-11153 2015-04162 NOTICES Petitions for Exemptions: General Motors Corp., Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft Prevention Standards, 11257-11259 2015-04161 Petitions for Inconsequential Noncompliance; Approvals: Ford Motor Co., 11259-11260 2015-04151 Petitions for Inconsequential Noncompliance; Denials: General Motors, LLC, 11261-11262 2015-04150 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES A Wearable Alcohol Biosensor Challenge; Requirements and Registration, 11208-11210 2015-04254 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Genetic Testing Registry, 11210-11211 2015-04255 Meetings: National Cancer Institute, 11211 2015-04170 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 11211 2015-04168 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Summer Flounder Fishery; Quota Transfer, 11139 2015-04215 Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Regulations; Correction, 11111-11113 2015-04237 NOTICES Meetings: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 11174 2015-04209 Hydrographic Services Review Panel, 11175-11176 2015-04249 Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee, 11175 2015-04246 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 11176-11177 2015-04208 2015-04217 New England Fishery Management Council, 11175 2015-04218 Permits: Marine Mammals; File No. 19293, 11177-11178 2015-04167 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Duke Energy Florida, Inc., Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, 11233-11236 2015-04288 License Amendment Applications: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit 2, 11236-11239 2015-04292 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 11239-11240 2015-04295 Patent Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Recording Assignments, 11178 2015-04214 Rules for Patent Maintenance Fees, 11178-11181 2015-04212 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annual Reporting, 11240-11241 2015-04251 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 11241-11242 2015-04211 Public Debt Public Debt Bureau See

Fiscal Service

Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 11242-11243 2015-04221 2015-04222 2015-04223 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 11250-11251 2015-04182 BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., 11244-11246 2015-04183 Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 11252-11254 2015-04181 Depository Trust Co., 11243-11244 2015-04184 ICE Clear Europe Ltd., 11246-11250 2015-04188 NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., 11254-11256 2015-04189 State Department State Department PROPOSED RULES Review of United States Munitions List Categories VIII and XIX, 11314 2015-04291 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities: List of Facilities that Meet Minimum Standards to Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies, 11211-11213 2015-04216 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 11262-11263 2015-04250 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

Treasury Treasury Department See

Fiscal Service

See

Internal Revenue Service

Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, 11266-11311 2015-03391 Part III Commerce Department, Industry and Security Bureau, 11315-11316 2015-04293 State Department, 11314 2015-04291 Reader Aids

Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, 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 40 Monday, March 2, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service 7 CFR Parts 210 and 235 [FNS-2011-0030] RIN 0584-AE19 Professional Standards for State and Local School Nutrition Programs Personnel as Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 AGENCY:

Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule establishes minimum professional standards for school nutrition personnel who manage and operate the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. The final rule institutes hiring standards for the selection of State and local school nutrition program directors, and requires all personnel in the school nutrition programs to complete annual continuing education/training. These regulations are expected to result in consistent, national professional standards that strengthen the ability of school nutrition professionals and staff to perform their duties effectively and efficiently.

DATES:

This rule is effective July 1, 2015. Compliance with the provisions of this rule must begin July 1, 2015, except as noted in specific regulatory provisions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Julie Brewer, School Programs Branch, Policy and Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition Service, at (703) 305-2590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA), Public Law 111-296, requires significant changes in the Child Nutrition Programs to prevent and reduce childhood obesity, give eligible children access to nutrition benefits, and enhance the ability of nutrition professionals to operate the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) efficiently. Section 306 of the HHFKA amended section 7 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (CNA) (42 U.S.C. 1776) by adding paragraph (g), “Professional Standards for School Food Service.” This provision is intended to ensure that school nutrition professionals that manage and operate the NSLP and SBP have adequate knowledge and training to meet Program requirements. Requiring proper qualifications to serve in the Child Nutrition Programs is expected to improve the quality of school meals, reduce errors, and enhance Program integrity.

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a proposed rule (79 FR 6488) on February 4, 2014, seeking to amend the regulations governing the NSLP (7 CFR part 210) and the State administrative expense funds (7 CFR part 235) consistent with amendments made to the CNA by the HHFKA. The rule proposed to establish national hiring standards and annual continuing education/training requirements for school nutrition professionals that manage and operate the NSLP and SBP.

In developing the proposed professional standards, FNS considered input from a variety of sources. First, in November 2011, FNS conducted a session at the State Agency Meeting for State Child Nutrition Directors and their staff members. At that session, the participants brought up a number of general issues for FNS to consider, including grandfathering (the practice of exempting existing personnel from the new requirements), monitoring by State agencies, and how the new requirements would relate to existing State and local standards.

On March 13-14, 2012, FNS held a two-day listening session with approximately 60 invited stakeholders representing a variety of State agencies, local educational agencies (LEAs), professional associations and other constituencies concerned with standards affecting child nutrition professionals. The stakeholders provided suggestions for FNS to consider regarding required and preferred professional standards, and offered input on potential challenges and on use of resources to successfully implement national standards.

As follow-up to the March session, interested participants volunteered to continue providing input via conference calls. Participants on the calls included State and district directors, professional organizations, and FNS staff. Calls focused on three topics: Criteria and standards for hiring State agency directors; minimum education and training requirements for school nutrition directors; and training requirements for school nutrition managers and other staff. FNS conducted the conference calls in the five months following the listening session.

FNS also received feedback from attendees at the School Nutrition Association's Annual National Conference in July 2012 and July 2013. The audience, which consisted of State agency directors and staff, school nutrition directors, managers and other personnel, provided significant input for the proposed professional standards.

As a result of the stakeholders' feedback, FNS developed proposed professional standards consisting of minimum educational requirements for new State directors and school nutrition program directors, and annual continuing education/training requirements for all school nutrition personnel. These proposed standards for State directors are summarized in the following two charts and discussed later in the preamble:

Proposed Rule Hiring Standards for New State Agency Directors State director of school nutrition program State director of distributing
  • agencies
  • Education A bachelor's degree with an academic major in areas including food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field A bachelor's degree with any academic major. Knowledge & Experience Extensive relevant knowledge and experience in areas such as institutional food service operations, management, business, and/or nutrition education. Skills & Abilities Additional abilities and skills needed to lead, manage, and supervise people to support the mission of Child Nutrition Programs.
    Proposed Rule Training Requirements for All State Agency Directors State director of school nutrition programs State director of distributing agencies • Each school year, must complete at least 15 hours of annual continuing education/training in core areas, such as nutrition, operations, administration, communications, and marketing. Additional hours and topics may be specified by FNS annually, as necessary
  • • Must also provide or ensure that State agency staff receives annual continuing education/training
  • • Must provide the SFAs at least 18 hours of training in topics such as administrative practices (training in application, certification, verification, meal counting and meal claiming procedures); the accuracy of approvals for free and reduced price meals; the identification of reimbursable meals at the point of service; nutrition; health and food safety standards; the efficient and effective use of USDA foods; and any other appropriate topics, as determined by FNS, to ensure program compliance and integrity
  • • Each school year, must complete at least 15 hours of annual continuing education/training in core areas, such as nutrition, operations, administration, communications, and marketing. Additional hours and topics may be specified by FNS annually, as necessary.
  • • Must also provide or ensure that State agency staff receives annual continuing education/training in topics such as the efficient and effective use of USDA donated foods; inventory rotation and control; health and food safety standards; and any other appropriate topics, as determined by FNS, to ensure program compliance and integrity.
  • For employees at the local level, FNS proposed minimum educational requirements for new school nutrition program directors only, based on an LEA size/student enrollment (LEAs with 2,499 students or less, LEAs with 2,500-9,999 students, LEAs with 10,000-24,999 students, and LEAs with 25,000 or more students). The proposed hiring standards are intended to apply to the school food authority (SFA), which is the governing body that has the legal authority to operate the school meal programs. In addition, FNS proposed annual continuing education/training requirements for all SFA employees. The proposed standards for SFA employees are summarized in the following two charts and discussed later in the preamble:

    Proposed Rule Hiring Standards for School Nutrition Program Directors by Local Educational Agency Size Minimum
  • requirements for directors
  • Student enrollment
  • 2,499 or less
  • Student enrollment
  • 2,500-9,999
  • Student enrollment
  • 10,000-24,999
  • Student enrollment
  • 25,000 or more
  • Minimum Education Standards (required) (new directors only) Bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with academic major or concentration in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field Bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with academic major or concentration in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field; Bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with academic major or concentration in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field; Same requirements as for 10,000-24,999 size category. OR OR OR Bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with any academic major or area of concentration, and a State-recognized certificate in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, or business; Bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with any academic major or area of concentration, and a State-recognized certificate in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, or business; Bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with any academic major or area of concentration, and a State-recognized certificate in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, or business. OR OR Associate's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with academic major or concentration in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field; and at least one year of relevant school nutrition programs experience;
  • OR
  • High school diploma (or GED) and 5 years of relevant experience in school nutrition programs
  • Associate's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with academic major or concentration in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field; and at least one year of relevant school nutrition programs experience.
    Minimum Education Standards (preferred) (new directors only) Directors hired without an associate's degree are strongly encouraged to work toward attaining associate's degree upon hiring Directors hired without a bachelor's degree strongly encouraged to work toward attaining bachelor's degree upon hiring Master's degree, or willingness to work toward master's degree, preferred
  • At least one year of management experience, preferably in school nutrition, strongly recommended
  • Same requirements as for 10,000-24,999 size category.
    At least 3 credit hours at the university level in food service management plus at least 3 credit hours in nutritional sciences at time of hiring strongly preferred Minimum Prior Training Standards (required) (new directors only) At least 8 hours of food safety training is required either 3 years prior to their starting date or completed within 30 days of employee's starting date.
    Proposed Rule Annual Continuing Education/Training for All Local Educational Agency Sizes New and Current Directors Each year, at least 15 hours of annual continuing education/training.
  • Includes topics such as:
  • • Administrative practices (including training in application, certification, verification, meal counting, and meal claiming procedures).
  • • Any other appropriate topics as determined by FNS.
  • This required continuing education/training is in addition to the food safety training required in the first year of employment.
  • New and Current Managers Each year, at least 12 hours of annual continuing education/training.
  • Includes topics such as:
  • • Administrative practices (including training in application, certification, verification, meal counting, and meal claiming procedures).
  • • The identification of reimbursable meals at the point of service.
  • • Nutrition, health and safety standards.
  • • Other topics, as specified by FNS.
  • New and Current Staff (other than the director and managers) that work an average of at least 20 hours per week Each year, at least 8 hours of annual continuing education/training.
  • Includes topics such as:
  • • Free and reduced price eligibility.
  • • Application, certification, and verification procedures.
  • • The identification of reimbursable meals at the point of service.
  • • Nutrition, health and safety standards.
  • • Other topics, as specified by FNS.
  • II. Public Comments

    The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on February 4, 2014 (79 FR 6488) seeking to establish minimum hiring standards for the selection of State directors and local school nutrition program directors, and annual continuing education/training requirements for all school nutrition personnel effective July 1, 2015. The rule was posted for comment on www.regulations.gov and the public had the opportunity to submit comments on the proposal during a 60-day period that ended April 7, 2014.

    FNS appreciates the valuable comments provided by stakeholders and the public. We received 2,204 public comments that included 241 distinct submissions and 1,963 identical form letters that were submitted by individual commenters. Although not all commenters identified their group affiliation or commenter category, most comments were submitted by:

    • SFA personnel—96 comments;

    • Associations (national, state, local and other)—16 comments;

    • State agencies—14 comments;

    • Nutritionists/dietitians—7 comments;

    • Advocate groups (national and state levels)—6 comments; and

    • Non-profit organizations—4 comments.

    To view all public comments on the proposed rule, go to www.regulations.gov and search for public submissions under docket number FNS-2011-0030.

    Overall, 110 public comments and 1,963 form letters voiced support for the proposal, and 93 public comments expressed opposition. Supporters stated that professional standards will advance the school nutrition profession and enhance the ability of personnel at all levels to successfully manage and operate the school meal programs. They affirmed that establishing professional standards will contribute to the recognition of the skills, professionalism, and dedication of school nutrition employees. Several organizations commended USDA for developing sensible hiring standards and continuing education/training requirements for State and local school nutrition professionals.

    Opponents generally expressed concern about specific provisions, or showed misunderstanding of specific provisions that are being clarified in this final rule. Many of the opponents expressed concern about the feasibility of the requirements for small and rural SFAs, and others indicated that the proposal could create operational and financial hardships for all SFAs. Some argued the professional standards could potentially exclude otherwise qualified applicants from employment and limit the upward mobility of current school nutrition employees. Other commenters were not clearly in favor or opposed to the proposal but requested clarification on specific aspects of the proposal.

    The following is a summary of the public comments by provision:

    Hiring Standards

    Public Comments: One hundred fifty-two commenters addressed the hiring standards for new school nutrition program directors in § 210.30(b) of the proposed rule. FNS proposed hiring standards for four distinct LEA size categories: LEAs with 2,499 students or less, LEAs with 2,500-9,999 students, LEAs with 10,000-24,999 students, and LEAs with 25,000 or more students. In general, the proposed standards become more stringent as the LEA size increases to ensure that the new school nutrition professionals have essential qualifications to manage and operate the school nutrition programs that impact a larger number of children. The proposed hiring standards consist of minimum educational standards that include the following options:

    • Bachelor's degree with a major in specific area (food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field), or

    • Bachelor's degree with any major and a State-recognized certificate, or

    • Associate's degree with major in specific areas and at least one year of experience in school nutrition programs (for LEAs with less than 10,000 students), or

    • High school diploma or GED and at least five years of experience in school nutrition programs (for LEAs with less than 2,500 students).

    In general, commenters expressed support for establishing hiring standards for the professionals who administer and operate the school nutrition programs at the SFA level, but many commenters voiced concerns about specific provisions or sought clarification. Commenters stressed the importance of school nutrition experience, and noted that an appropriate combination of education and experience is important to avoid excluding otherwise qualified applicants. Some stated that an academic degree alone may not be sufficient to run a school nutrition program. Since the proposed rule did not specify work experience for all pathways leading to the position of school nutrition program director, a few commenters expressed concern that candidates with a degree but no valuable school nutrition experience will apply for these positions.

    Providing current SFA program directors the opportunity for upward mobility was another concern raised by commenters. A commenter offered alternatives to a degree, including the suggestion that a significant number of years of work experience be considered acceptable in place of a degree. Another suggestion was that the School Nutrition Association certification or a similar certification be accepted as an alternative to an academic degree.

    Many commenters expressed concerns about the hiring standards for small and rural SFAs. Some argued that higher compensation should support stricter hiring standards, and that many small SFAs do not have the resources to increase salaries to attract qualified applicants. Commenters also stated that stricter standards could decrease the candidate pool, which would make hiring more difficult. A commenter also stated that the hiring requirements could adversely affect small and rural communities that depend on the school nutrition program for a source of part- time jobs. Other obstacles mentioned were the rising costs of a college education and the limited availability of community colleges in rural areas.

    A commenter suggested delaying the implementation of the regulations to provide State agencies and SFAs sufficient time to modify their hiring procedures. The commenter expressed concern that the proposed hiring standards could be inconsistent with hiring standards already negotiated and in place in different LEAs.

    Seven commenters addressed the proposed hiring standards for new State directors of school nutrition programs and for new State directors of distributing agencies in § 235.11(g)(1) and § 235.11(g)(2), respectively, of the proposed rule. The proposed hiring standards for both State director positions consist of a bachelor's degree; extensive knowledge and experience in specific areas (such as institutional food service operations, management, business and/or nutrition education); and specific skills and abilities to lead and supervise people. For the State director of school nutrition program, FNS proposed requiring a specific major in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field. The proposed rule does not specify a major for the State director of distributing agencies.

    In general, commenters voiced support for establishing hiring standards for State directors. However, one commenter requested a definition for director of distributing agencies positions affected by this rule, and also said that the hiring standards for the State director of distributing agencies should focus on relevant experience, as the knowledge and skills required for that position are more likely to be acquired through experience than through academic study. Another commenter suggested that the hiring standards for the State director of distributing agencies should specify a major in business, food service, or similar field, instead of a bachelor's degree in any major. Some commenters said that the hiring standards for both State director positions should be similar. A few commenters suggested establishing hiring standards for the State agency staff that monitors and provides technical assistance to the local program operators.

    FNS Response: FNS recognizes that school nutrition employees are a dedicated and resourceful workforce determined to perform a wide range of job duties. The NSLP and SBP have grown considerably and changed significantly since their inception and school nutrition personnel at the State and local levels have contributed significantly to Program accomplishments. By requiring hiring standards for new State and SFA school nutrition directors, the CNA seeks to ensure that the most qualified candidates are selected for these key positions. As recognized by Congress in establishing hiring standards for these positions, the requirements will help guarantee that those administering and operating the school nutrition programs in the years ahead have a solid foundation to help them undertake new challenges. The hiring standards are expected to create a strong team of school nutrition professionals that will be able to find new ways to improve Program meals, access, and integrity in schools nationwide. This final rule provides that current State agency and school nutrition program directors will be grandfathered in, and thus, will not be required to meet the new hiring standards and may continue to serve in their current positions.

    For the position of school nutrition program director, this final rule sets minimum hiring standards for only three distinct LEA size categories: LEAs with 2,499 students or less, LEAs with 2,500-9,999 students, and LEAs with 10,000 or more students. The final rule does not set separate hiring standards for LEAs with 25,000 or more students because such standards are no different than the proposed standards for LEAs with 10,000-24,999 students. Overall, as the LEA size increases, a higher educational level for new hires is required to match the level of responsibility and complexity of the food service system.

    This final rule does not require prior program experience if a new school nutrition program director has attained a bachelor's degree or higher with a specific academic major in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field. This is in consideration of the possibility that some well-qualified candidates may apply for a director position shortly following college graduation. Prior experience is required for other hiring pathways established by this rule.

    The hiring pathways for new SFA directors in the three specified LEA sizes remain as proposed except for a few modifications to the required program experience to reflect the needs and complexities of different LEAs. Section 210.30(b)(1) of this final rule establishes the following hiring pathways for school nutrition program directors:

    • Bachelor's degree with a major in specific areas (for all LEA sizes);

    • Bachelor's degree in any academic major plus a State-recognized certificate (for all LEA sizes);

    • Associate's degree with a specific major plus two years, instead of the proposed one year, of relevant school nutrition experience (for LEAs with 2,500-9,999 students);

    • Associate's degree with a specific major plus one year of relevant school nutrition experience (for LEAS with 2,499 students or less); and

    • High school diploma (or GED) plus three years (instead of the proposed five years) of relevant school nutrition experience (for LEAs with 2,499 students or less).

    This final rule also adds two hiring pathways for individuals who have a bachelor's degree in any major plus valuable program experience, and are seeking to serve as SFA directors in mid-size LEAs and large-size LEAs. For LEAs with 2,500-9,999 students, a bachelor's degree in any academic major and at least two years of relevant school nutrition program experience is now accepted. For LEAs with 10,000 or more students, a bachelor's degree in any major and at least five years' experience in management of school nutrition programs is also accepted. These additional pathways are intended to expand the employment opportunities for applicants with significant program experience.

    This final rule also responds to the concerns of commenters regarding the feasibility of the proposed hiring standards for small LEAs. The fourth School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA IV), which was conducted during school year 2011-2012, indicated that in LEAs with 2,499 or less students, 34 percent of current directors have an associate's degree or higher; 27 percent have completed some college without a degree; and 27 percent hold a high school diploma. Based on this information, FNS proposed several hiring pathways for small LEAs that include two options that require a bachelor's degree, one option that requires an associate's degree plus one year of school nutrition experience, and one option that requires a high school diploma (or GED) plus five years of experience. As stated earlier, to facilitate implementation of the professional standards, this final rule reduces the required years of experience for candidates with a high school diploma from five years to three years of relevant program experience. The hiring pathways for LEAs with 2,499 or less students are established in § 210.30(b)(1)(i) of the final rule.

    In response to commenters' concerns over the ability to hire SFA directors for very small LEAs, such as those in rural areas or with less than 500 students, this final rule allows the State agency discretion to approve an LEA's hiring of a school nutrition program director that has a high school diploma (or GED) but less than the required three years of relevant program experience. The LEA interested in hiring an applicant with less than the required three years of relevant program experience must demonstrate to the State agency that the applicant meets the minimum educational standard and, therefore, is otherwise qualified for the position and the best available candidate. This hiring flexibility, set forth in § 210.30(b)(1)(i)(D) of the final rule, is expected to benefit Residential Child Care Institutions and Tribal schools that may face unique challenges in finding experienced candidates.

    Regarding career mobility for current program directors within a state or between states, this final rule allows grandfathered directors to remain in their positions, or to transfer to another position in an LEA of the same size category. The ability to transfer is intended to allow current employees an opportunity to enhance their Program expertise by moving to another position for which they are qualified and determined to be the best candidate. The rule also gives current directors the flexibility to move to a position in a larger SFA (within the same LEA size category). However, to move to a larger LEA size, for example to move from an LEA with 4,000 students (the 2,500-9,999 category) to an LEA with 12,000 students (the 10,000 or more category), a grandfathered program director must meet the hiring standards established for the larger LEA. As noted earlier, as the LEA size increases, the minimum educational level also increases to match the demands and complexity of the job.

    The proposed hiring standards for State director of school nutrition programs in § 235.11(g)(1), and for State director of distributing agencies in § 235.11(g)(2) were generally well received by commenters. Although FNS recognizes that in a few States both roles are performed by one individual, the final rule retains separate hiring standards. The educational requirement for the State director of school nutrition programs specifies a bachelor's degree with a specific academic major, while a bachelor's degree in any major is allowed for the State director of distributing agencies.

    A few comments revealed possible misunderstanding of the hiring standards for State directors. To clarify, the final rule's hiring standards for both State director positions allow the selection of a job applicant that has a bachelor's degree with a major in business, and knowledge and experience in areas such as management and business. Also, for both State director positions, the State agency may require years of relevant program experience in addition to the minimum criteria established by this final rule. This final rule does not include hiring standards for State agency staff because section 7 of the CNA does not authorize FNS to establish such requirements.

    Commenters suggested different hiring scenarios and asked how the hiring standards would apply. In general, if an individual is hired to perform more than one school nutrition job, the hiring standards for the higher level position will apply. For example, if an individual will serve as both school nutrition program director and as program manager, the hiring requirements for the program director position will apply. If a program director will oversee more than one SFA, the sum of the student enrollment determines the hiring requirements. In such a case, the new program director will have to meet the hiring requirements for the LEA size that reflects the total student enrollment. If an individual will serve in two completely different capacities, such as school principal and school nutrition program director, the hiring standards for the appropriate LEA size will still apply and must be met. At the discretion of the State agency, temporary, or “acting” school nutrition program directors expected to work more than 30 business days may be required to meet the hiring standards. FNS recognizes that this final rule does not address every unique hiring situation. FNS will provide guidance and work with the State agencies to address unique situations at the State and SFA levels as they are identified through implementation.

    The hiring standards established by this final rule are effective July 1, 2015, as proposed. Most commenters did not oppose the proposed implementation date, or instead requested a different implementation date. The hiring standards are for new hires only, and are not significantly different from the educational levels that most current directors nationwide have already attained. Therefore, delaying implementation of the hiring standards is not reasonable.

    One stakeholder noted that modifying hiring procedures takes time, and suggested the effective date of the rule be at least two years following publication. The commenter expressed concern about the rule's effective date and the impact on hires made for the school year 2015-2016. To address this concern, FNS will give the State agencies and LEAs the flexibility to hire a candidate that meets the State/local employment requirements in place prior to July 1, 2015, provided the State agency or LEA advertises a vacancy prior to the final rule's effective date.

    To facilitate implementation of the hiring standards, FNS will work closely with the State agencies to examine unique situations and determine the appropriate course of action. Accordingly, this final rule codifies the hiring standards for school nutrition program directors in § 210.30(b)(1), and the hiring standards for State directors in § 235.11(g)(1) and § 235.11(g)(2).

    Prior Food Safety Training

    Public Comments: Thirty commenters addressed the hiring standard in § 210.30(b)(1)(v) of the proposed rule that would require only new school nutrition program directors to have completed at least eight hours of food safety training within three years prior to their starting date, or within 30 calendar days of their starting date. Some commenters said that food safety in school meals is extremely important and, therefore, new and existing SFA directors should be required to complete this food safety training. A few commenters recommended the requirement be extended to all SFA employees. Other commenters said that new SFA directors should have more than 30 days from the date of hiring to complete the eight hours of food safety training. Suggested timeframes included 60 days, 90 days, 6 months, 1 year, and until the employee is no longer on probation.

    Many commenters suggested that the food safety training certification period be extended from three to five years, consistent with ServSafe (the food and beverage safety training and certificate programs administered by the National Restaurant Association). Several suggested that ServSafe be considered acceptable food safety training, and a few said that annual food sanitation training should be sufficient. A commenter also addressed jurisdictional considerations regarding food safety regulations in Tribal Nations.

    FNS Response: FNS agrees with commenters that food safety is critical for the school nutrition programs. This final rule retains the proposed food safety training for new school nutrition program directors but extends the certification period from three to five years, as suggested by commenters. This change is consistent with ServSafe, which is an existing, national food and beverage safety training and certificate program. New directors that have not completed at least eight hours of food safety training within five years prior to their starting date must complete the required training within 30 calendar days of their starting date. FNS is not extending the 30-day period for allowing completion of food safety training for new hires because food safety training is critical to ensure safe school meals. The State agencies have discretion to impose stricter standards and, therefore, may require current school nutrition program directors, regardless of their starting date, and all employees involved in food handling to be certified in food safety every five years. Accordingly, this final rule codifies the prior food safety requirement for new school nutrition program directors in § 210.30(b)(1)(v).

    A few commenters discussed unique scenarios, including how to apply the prior food safety training requirement to an individual that serves in two completely different capacities, such as school principal and school nutrition program director. FNS will work with the State agencies to address unique hiring situations as they come up during implementation. In addition, we will continue existing regular conversations with Tribal Nations to clarify any issues pertaining to implementation of the hiring requirements in school meal programs operated on Indian reservations.

    Training Standards

    Public Comments: Seventy-nine commenters addressed the annual continuing education/training requirements for school nutrition program directors in § 210.30(b)(3) of the proposed rule, 58 commenters discussed the training requirements for managers in § 210.30(c), and 105 commenters discussed the training requirements for staff (including those working less than 20 hours per week) in § 210.30(d). Above all, commenters recommended that the required training on the topics specified in the proposal be job-specific. They also asked that FNS clarify what activities count as training, and suggested that non-classroom activities such as annual conferences, self-study, on-the-job training, and SFA/FNS annual meetings count as training. Some also said that SFA directors should determine the training needs of their managers and staff. A few commenters suggested that only staff that are directly involved in food production be required to receive training.

    Commenters also expressed concern about the required number of annual training hours and the staff's availability to receive training. Several said that the required training hours are too burdensome, training could take too much time away from work, and it is difficult to find substitutes to assist during the training periods. Suggested annual training hours ranged from 4-12 hours for program staff, and from 5-8 hours for program managers. Several commenters stressed that employees should not be expected to complete training outside of their normal work hours. A few commenters opposed the flexibility to allow the school nutrition program directors to count training offered to staff toward their own required training hours. They said that SFA directors who are already familiar with the training topics would not learn anything new. Many commenters voiced concerns about the feasibility of the proposed training requirements for employees in small SFAs. They said that college and internet access are not easily accessible to many employees in rural areas.

    Commenters asked FNS to clarify the required training topics for SFA personnel. Some said the proposed training topics are too specific and not applicable to all staff. A commenter recommended that topics such as budget, and staff management and training be included in the required training topics for school nutrition program directors. Another suggested training on communication, cultural conflicts, conflict resolution, marketing, advocacy, and other topics.

    Commenters also asked FNS to clarify the allowable training formats/types and the acceptable training sources. They recommended that a variety of training formats, such as online and classroom training, self-study, on-the-job training, FNS webinars, conferences, etc. be allowed.

    The use of the school foodservice fund to pay for annual continuing education/training expenses was a concern raised by commenters. They argued that that the proposed annual training requirements could be financially burdensome. In addition, many of them opposed the prohibition in § 210.30(f) of the proposed rule that disallows the use of food service funds to pay for the cost of college credits to meet the hiring standards.

    Commenters also asked FNS to clarify how the training requirements will apply to staff working less than 20 hours per week, employees hired mid-year, temporary and substitute workers, employees with multiple roles, and volunteers. A few commenters supported prorating the required training hours for employees that work less than 20 hours per week. However, a commenter said it is difficult to predict if volunteers and substitutes will work 20 hours and be subject to the training requirements. Two commenters suggested that USDA collect and share data on the numbers and/or percentages of staff averaging less than 20 hours of work or less per week in order to determine required training hours for part time staff. They suggested that if a large percentage of cooks/servers work this reduced number of hours, those employees be required to meet the requirements for full-time workers to ensure the healthfulness and safety of school meals.

    FNS Response: Annual, job-specific training is the best way to ensure that school nutrition program personnel at all levels maintain and upgrade their skills to meet the needs of students, and to effectively implement Program requirements. We understand that State agencies and SFAs typically hold trainings prior to the beginning of the school year. We anticipate that most of the training topics and hours for school nutrition program directors, managers, and staff will be completed at that time to minimize work disruptions while school is in session, and to ensure that all employees understand Program requirements to adequately perform their duties. However, employees may also receive training at other times during the year and apply it to their annual training requirement. For example, during the school year staff may receive training on the operation of new equipment, on new policies as they emerge, or when an administrative review identifies issues that need correction.

    In response to commenters' concerns about the feasibility of the training hours required at the SFA level, this final rule makes several important changes to the proposed rule. First, the final rule reduces the required annual training hours as follows:

    • School nutrition program director—12 annual training hours (15 hours proposed).

    • School nutrition program managers—10 annual training hours (12 hours proposed).

    • School nutrition program staff—6 annual training hours (8 hours proposed).

    Second, to facilitate implementation of the requirements, this rule phases in the training hour requirements for directors, managers, and staff. In school year 2015-2016, the first year of implementation, program directors must complete 8 hours of training; program managers, 6 hours of training; and program staff, 4 hours of training. Training received three months prior to July 1, 2015, may count toward the first year training requirements for all directors, managers, and staff. Therefore, training received on or after April 1, 2015, may count toward the training requirements for school year 2015-2016.

    Beginning school year 2016-2017, the second year of implementation, program directors must complete the 12 hours of annual training, program managers must complete 10 hours, and staff must complete 6 hours. Accordingly, this final rule updates and codifies the required annual training hours for program directors in § 210.30(b)(3), for program managers in § 210.30(c), and for program staff in § 210.30(d).

    Third, for program staff working less than 20 hours per week, this final rule establishes a uniform requirement of 4 hours of annual training, instead of requiring that the annual training hours be proportional to the hours worked. Establishing a uniform number of training hours for this group of employees is intended to keep the training requirements simple and feasible for all LEAs, as requested by commenters. Although suggested by a commenter, FNS will not collect data on the number or percentage of employees working less than 20 annual training hours per week as part of this rulemaking. If necessary, such data would be collected outside of the regulatory process, most likely as part of our regular program evaluation efforts.

    For flexibility, all employees hired January 1 or later during any school year are only required to complete at least half of the required training hours for their position—director, manager, or staff. In addition, this final rule gives the State agencies discretion to decide if acting personnel, temporary workers and volunteers must complete annual training. FNS strongly encourages health and safety training for all staff involved in food handling and for others, as applicable.

    Fourth, this final rule requires annual training for all employees at the SFA level, but gives the State agency discretion to assess compliance with the training requirements over a period of two school years. If allowed by the State agency statewide, program directors, managers, and staff may complete the required training hours over a two-year period, provided that some training hours are completed each school year. FNS is providing this flexibility because some commenters indicated that the ability to participate in training activities annually is determined by different factors, and may vary from year to year.

    It is important to stress that while some carryover may be allowed by the State agency, school nutrition employees are expected to complete some training each school year as required by this final rule. Allowing SFA employees to carry over excess training hours to another school year is intended for operational flexibility and to facilitate compliance with the professional standards. For example, a program manager is required to complete 10 hours of annual training. Over a two-year period, the manager may complete 9 hours of training through an annual conference, and 11 hours of online training the following school year. FNS will provide more guidance on this flexibility, but it is important that the SFA retain documentation to show during an administrative review how the SFA employees have complied with the total required training hours over the two year period.

    An SFA director or manager may count the training offered to his/her staff toward part of his/her own annual training requirement. This flexibility is allowed because program directors must keep learning in order to communicate and help implement new policies and procedures through the training offered to SFA personnel. Program policies and procedures are expected to continue to evolve to reflect advances in nutrition science and to incorporate new statutory requirements intended to enhance Program meals, access and integrity. Therefore, preparing for and imparting knowledge can help an SFA director or manager cement his/her knowledge of the school meal programs.

    With regard to the list of training topics for SFA directors, section 7(g)(2) of the CNA requires training in administrative practices (including application, certification, verification, meal counting, and meal claiming procedures), nutrition, health and food safety standards and methodologies, and any other topics, as determined by FNS. These training topics must be offered to the SFA personnel, as applicable. State directors are not required to seek approval from FNS before receiving or providing training, but must keep records to demonstrate training completion. The training topics specified in § 210.30(b)(3), § 210.30(c) and § 210.30(d) of this final rule must be completed annually, or as needed, in order to be informed of the most current policies and regulatory requirements, and to refresh existing knowledge. Each individual employee at the SFA level must receive and complete training on the topics or areas applicable to his/her job, or as required by FNS.

    The amendments made to the CNA by the HHFKA give the Secretary authority to require any other appropriate training topic to address critical issues, such as Program integrity. Therefore, the Secretary may require, as needed, that SFA employees complete specific training topic(s) or course(s) identified by FNS to address crucial Program needs. FNS does not anticipate that such action will take place annually, but may take such action in response to important Program issues. If a specific training topic or course is required by FNS, it will be available at low cost or no cost, and in a variety of formats. Accordingly, this final rule codifies the training requirements for State directors of school nutrition programs and distributing agencies in § 235.11(g)(3); and the training requirements for school nutrition program directors, managers and staff in § 210.30(b)(3), § 210.30(c), and § 210.30(d), respectively.

    As requested by commenters, this final rule also allows a variety of training formats, both online (webinars, interactive online sessions, etc.) and in-person (classroom training, in-service training, seminars, public speakers, etc.). Training from a variety of sources is acceptable, including the National Food Service Management Institute (NFSMI), in-house/SFA, State agencies, FNS Team Nutrition, the School Nutrition Association (SNA), professional associations/organizations, and reputable commercial vendors. FNS is working in partnership with the NFSMI to make free or low-cost training available in a variety of formats. More than 450 existing training resources in a variety of formats are already listed on the professional standards Web site (http://professionalstandards.nal.usda.gov). Any of these resources are considered appropriate to meet the requirements of this rule. School nutrition staff may find training that meets their learning needs by conducting advanced searches for specific topic areas, training format, training length, learning objectives, and training location.

    Several commenters addressed the use of school food service funds to pay for employee training. Annual continuing education/training is an allowable use of the nonprofit school food service account and of State Administrative Expense funds. The training costs must be reasonable, allocable, and necessary in accordance with the cost principles set forth in 2 CFR part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.

    However, the cost of college credits incurred by an individual to meet the hiring standards for the positions of State director or SFA director is not an allowable expense. Meeting the hiring standards is the sole responsibility of a job applicant. Accordingly, this final rule codifies in § 210.30(f) and in § 235.6(a)(a-1) the prohibition regarding the payment of college credits to meet hiring standards. To clarify, annual continuing education/training of current school nutrition personnel should be encouraged and may be supported by the State agency and the SFA through available funds. And although funds may not be used to earn college credit to meet the hiring standards, the restriction on the use of funds does not apply to college courses required for annual continuing education/training purposes; in such cases, the State agency and the SFA may assess if the use of Program funds meets Federal standards.

    With regard to the training for State director of school nutrition programs and State director of distributing agencies, this final rule retains the proposed requirement that State directors complete 15 hours of annual training in core areas such as nutrition, operations, administration, communications and marketing, as well as additional training topics and hours specified by FNS annually, as necessary. Only three commenters addressed this provision and they mostly agreed with the proposed requirement. FNS wishes to clarify that we will only require State directors to complete additional training topics and hours if necessary to address critical Program issues, such as Program integrity. In addition, when an individual performs both State agency functions, the annual training requirement remains 15 hours because the core areas of training are the same. Accordingly, the annual training requirement for State directors is codified in § 235.11(g)(3) of the final rule.

    Definitions

    Public Comments: Ten commenters addressed the proposed definitions for “School nutrition program directors,” “School nutrition program managers,” and “School nutrition program staff” set forth in § 210.2. Some asked FNS to provide more specific definitions. Others stated that in small and rural SFAs, an individual often performs more than one job. A commenter asked FNS to provide a definition for “State director of distributing agencies.”

    FNS response: FNS recognizes that there are varying structures within each SFA; therefore, the proposed definitions for directors, managers, and staff are intended to be general and describe the function/role in broad terms to be applicable to most SFAs. They also provide some distinction between the three levels to help districts determine which category employees or groups of employees would fall under each definition. The definition of “School nutrition program directors” refers to the local individuals directly responsible for the management of the day-to-day operations of the school nutrition programs for all participating schools under the jurisdiction of the SFA. The definition of “School nutrition program managers” refers to those individuals directly responsible for the day-to-day operations of the school nutrition programs for a participating school(s). “School nutrition program staff” refers those local individuals without managerial responsibilities who are involved in routine operations of the school nutrition programs for a participating school(s). Program staff may include, for example, those individuals who prepare and serve meals, process transactions at point of service, and review the free/reduced price applications. These definitions apply whether or not an SFA is operated by a food service management company. If a new employee will work in more than one position, only the higher level position requirements apply. Accordingly, this final rule codifies the proposed definitions in § 210.2.

    This final rule does not define “State director of school nutrition program” and “State director of distributing agencies.” Due to varying staffing protocols, vacancies or for other reasons, an individual performing director duties may have a different title, or sometimes performs both roles fully or partially. In light of these different scenarios, FNS believes, in this case, it is not practical to set definitions that cannot fully describe the broad array of diverse situations. It is more important to specify the responsibility for administration of the school nutrition and USDA Foods programs as a reference for who is subject to the requirements, regardless of the job title they may hold in a particular State.

    We wish to clarify that the standards apply to those responsible for the administration of the NSLP, SBP, and the distribution of USDA Foods at the State level. Although we recognize that sometimes the individual responsible for the distribution of USDA Foods might not have a position equivalent to that of the State director of school nutrition programs, proper administration of the distribution of USDA Foods is critical to the effective and efficient operations of the school meal programs, and requires the education and training proposed. Accordingly, the final rule adds a clarification in the description of a State director as the person responsible for the administration of the NSLP, SBP, and/or the distribution of USDA donated foods at the State level in the opening statements of § 235.11(g)(1) and § 235.11(g)(2).

    Recordkeeping Requirements

    Public Comments: Twenty-three commenters discussed the proposed recordkeeping requirements in § 210.15(b)(8), § 210.20(b)(15), and § 235.11(g)(5). Commenters asked FNS to clarify the recordkeeping period to demonstrate compliance with the professional standards. Several of these commenters said the recordkeeping burden is underestimated because, in their view, documenting that each employee receives annual training will result in additional paperwork for SFAs. Some commenters also asked FNS to clarify who is responsible for tracking the hours of training completed by the school nutrition program director, manager and staff, and what documentation is acceptable. Several suggested that FNS develop a tracking mechanism to assist the SFAs.

    FNS Response: It appears there was misunderstanding regarding the proposed recordkeeping requirements. FNS estimated a one-time recordkeeping activity of 15 minutes per respondent (State agencies, SFAs/LEAs, and schools) to document compliance with annual training at the State and local levels. FNS understands that most State agencies and SFAs conduct annual training on a variety of topics prior to the beginning of the school year. In addition, training is sometimes offered on-the-job during the school year, or may be undertaken by an individual employee. We envision minimum recordkeeping associated with these types of training activities. FNS is developing an optional downloadable tool to help the school nutrition program director keep track of the training activities at the SFA level. With this tool, an SFA may generate annual records for verification of training completed. Documentation such as copies of the training agenda, sign-up sheets, and other paper documents would also be acceptable. Each SFA decides how to maintain the records to document training completion.

    The school nutrition program director is ultimately responsible for demonstrating, during the administrative review, that the SFA is in compliance with the professional standards. Professional standards records must be retained for a period of three years, consistent with other recordkeeping requirements in 7 CFR part 210. Accordingly, this final rule codifies the recordkeeping requirements in § 210.15(b)(8), § 210.20(b)(15), and § 235.11(g)(5).

    SFA Oversight

    Public Comments: Twenty-seven commenters addressed the requirement in § 210.30(g) of the proposed rule, which stipulates that the SFAs must document compliance with the applicable professional standard requirements annually. The provision specifies that documentation must be sufficient to demonstrate during an administrative review that the program director meets the hiring and training standards, and that each employee has completed the applicable required training no later than the end of each school year. Many of the commenters asked how to document compliance with the training requirements and handle cases of non-compliance.

    FNS Response: SFAs must encourage and facilitate compliance with the professional standards. As such, SFAs must monitor and document an employee's continuing education/training progress periodically throughout the year to ensure that each employee is or will be in compliance with the training requirements by the end of each school year, and that the program directors meet the training and hiring requirements. FNS will issue guidance and disseminate best practices to encourage compliance with the professional standards. We are also developing a training tracking tool that can be used by individual employees or by managers or directors for their entire staff. Accordingly, this final rule codifies the SFA oversight requirement in § 210.30(g).

    Administrative Reviews

    Public Comments: Seven commenters addressed the provision in § 210.18(h)(7) of the proposed rule that requires the State agency to monitor an SFA's compliance with professional standards as part of the general areas of the administrative review. Commenters asked FNS to explain the enforcement strategy and the documents needed to show SFA compliance with the requirements.

    FNS Response: Monitoring an SFA's compliance with the professional standards will be addressed through an update to the Administrative Review Manual and related tools and forms for School Year (SY) 2015-2016. As part of the general areas of review, the State agency is expected to examine records that document completion of applicable hiring and continuing education/training requirements. Although FNS does not require one specific document, college transcripts or degrees for new hires, food safety certifications, training certificates, attendance sign-in sheets, and training agendas are all examples of documents that an SFA may submit to demonstrate compliance with the professional standards.

    FNS recognizes that school year 2015-2016 may be a period of transition as establishing professional standards may involve significant changes for some SFAs. During this transition period, State agencies are expected to focus on providing guidance and technical assistance to help SFAs move toward compliance. In the first year of implementation, State agencies should work closely with the SFAs experiencing challenges to help them solve unique issues. Accordingly, this final rule codifies the State agency's monitoring responsibilities in § 210.18(h)(7).

    Miscellaneous Issues Addressed by Commenters Grandfathering

    Commenters addressed grandfathering, the practice of exempting existing personnel from the new requirements. Many commenters asked how existing employees will be grandfathered and for what duration. Some also addressed grandfathering and work mobility. Others expressed concern about the ability of existing employees to advance in their careers.

    FNS supports grandfathering current State agency directors and school nutrition program directors from the hiring standards established by this final rule. These individuals have generally demonstrated their ability to capably perform their job duties. Therefore, current SFA directors will be able to remain in their positions or transfer to a similar position in another LEA of the same size category (student enrollment) without having to meet the new hiring standards. However, grandfathering does not apply to the continuing education/annual training standards because all personnel, at both the State and local levels, need annual continuing education/training to maintain or upgrade their skills.

    State and Local Control of Meal Programs

    A few commenters addressed the potential impact of the professional standards regulations on the State and local administration of the meal programs. They expressed concern that the professional standards may not be consistent with local hiring/training practices and procedures. A few mentioned a possible interference with existing union contracts.

    FNS recognizes that the State agency and the local educational agency have administrative control of public or private nonprofit educational institutions within a defined area of the State. The State agency and SFA have legal authority to operate the Federal school meal programs and bear responsibility for the proper operation of these programs according to Federal regulations. The professional standards established by this final rule preempt existing State and local regulations, policies, etc. that may interfere with nationwide implementation of these new regulations. Prior to developing the proposed professional standards, FNS sought input from invited stakeholders representing a variety of State agencies, local educational agencies (both large and small), professional associations and other constituencies concerned with the school nutrition programs. The information shared by these groups regarding hiring criteria for State agency directors, minimum education and training requirements for school nutrition directors, and training requirements for school nutrition managers and staff were considered when drafting these professional standards regulations. FNS also considered the public comments received in response to the proposed regulations.

    FNS does not expect that implementation of national professional standards will interfere with the State/local management of school meal programs. This final rule establishes minimum hiring standards and training requirements that are expected to increase the ability of the State and local operators to properly manage the meal programs. The regulations allow State agencies and/or SFAs to establish their own professional standards, as long as such standards are not inconsistent with the minimum professional standards established by FNS.

    Some commenters indicated that the professional standards may be in conflict with some labor union contract provisions. Professional standards requirements and the implementation timeframes provided in this rule are federal law and thus preempt such provisions. Should it be necessary, FNS will work with the State agencies to address unique issues as they are identified.

    III. Summary of Changes to Proposal

    As explained earlier, FNS considered the commenters' concerns and suggestions and is updating parts of the proposal to focus more on school nutrition experience, and to facilitate nationwide implementation of the professional standards in all SFAs. The following is a summary of the changes and clarifications being made in this final rule.

    Hiring Standards for SFAs

    The final rule:

    • Eases the hiring requirements for the small LEAs (2,499 or less students) by reducing the required school nutrition program experience (from five to three years) for applicants with a high school diploma. See § 210.30(b)(1)(i)(D).

    • Allows the State agency discretion to approve (for an LEA with less than 500 students) the employment of a candidate that meets the educational standards but has less than the required school nutrition program experience. See § 210.30(b)(1)(i)(D).

    • Establishes another hiring path for mid-size LEAs (2,500-9,999 students) that emphasizes relevant experience (two years of school nutrition program experience and a bachelor's degree with a non-specific academic major). See § 210.30(b)(1)(ii)(C).

    • Increases the required school nutrition experience (from one to two years) for applicants who have an associate's degree with an academic major in specific areas and are seeking to work in a mid-size LEA (2,500-9,999 students). See § 210.30(b)(1)(ii)(D).

    • Provides another hiring path for large LEAs (10,000 or more students) that emphasizes relevant experience (five years of experience in managing school nutrition programs) and a bachelor's degree with a non-specific academic major. See § 210.30(b)(1)(iii)(C).

    • Removes the proposed, separate hiring standards for LEAs with 25,000 or more students.

    • Extends the effective period of the SFA director's food safety certification from three to five years, and allows the State agency discretion to extend the requirement to current SFA directors (those hired prior to July 1, 2015) and other personnel, as appropriate. See § 210.30(b)(1)(v).

    • Allows the State agency discretion to require that acting school nutrition program directors that will serve for more than 30 days to meet the established hiring standards. See § 210.30(b)(1)(iv).

    • Allows the State agencies and LEAs the flexibility to hire qualified candidates who meet the hiring standards in place prior to July 1, 2015, if the positions were advertised prior to the effective date of this rule.

    • Updates the summary chart to reflect the hiring standards for SFA directors implemented by this final rule. See § 210.30(b)(2).

    Annual Training Requirements for SFAs

    The final rule:

    • Phases in the required number of annual training hours for all school nutrition program personnel at the SFA level in school year 2015-2016 with a minimum of:

    ○ 8 hours of training for school nutrition program director—see § 210.30(b)(3).

    ○ 6 hours of training for school nutrition program manager—see § 210.30(c).

    ○ 4 hours of training for school nutrition program staff—see § 210.30(d).

    • Reduces the required number of annual continuing education/training hours for all school nutrition program personnel at the SFA level. The following required annual training hours apply beginning school year 2016-2017:

    ○ 12 hours of annual training for school nutrition program director—see § 210.30(b)(3).

    ○ 10 hours of annual training for school nutrition program manager—see § 210.30(c).

    ○ 6 hours of annual training for school nutrition program staff—see § 210.30(d).

    • Establishes a uniform, minimum requirement of 4 hours of annual training for all school nutrition program staff that work less than 20 hours per week. See § 210.30(d).

    • Clarifies that FNS has authority to require SFA directors, managers, and staff to complete specific training topics or courses, as needed, to promote Program integrity or to address other critical Program issues. See § 210.30(b)(3), § 210.30(c)(5) and § 210.30(d)(6), respectively.

    • Prorates the required training hours for employees hired mid-year. If hired January 1 or later, an employee must only complete half of the required training hours for that school year. See § 210.30(e).

    • Requires annual training for all SFA employees, but gives the State agency discretion to monitor an SFA's compliance with the requirements over a period of two years to allow operational flexibility at the local level. See § 210.30(e).

    • Gives the State agency discretion to require acting and temporary staff, substitutes and volunteers in an SFA to complete training in one or more of the topics listed in § 210.30(d), as applicable, within 30 calendar days of their start date. See § 210.30(e).

    • Clarifies that school food service funds may be used to pay for annual training costs that are reasonable, allocable and necessary, but must not be used to pay for the cost of college credits incurred by an individual at the SFA to meet the hiring standards established by this rule. See § 210.30(f).

    • Specifies that the SFA director or another official with similar authority must document compliance with the professional standards established for the school nutrition program director, manager, and staff. See § 210.30(g).

    Hiring Requirements for State Agencies

    The final rule codifies the proposed hiring requirements for State directors of school nutrition programs in § 235.11(g)(1) and the proposed hiring requirements for State directors of distributing agencies in § 235.11(g)(2). There are no changes to these specific proposed provisions.

    Annual Training Requirements for State Agencies

    The final rule:

    • Clarifies that State agency funds may be used to pay for annual training costs for the State director, but must not be used to pay for the cost of college credits incurred by an individual to meet the hiring standards established by this rule. See § 235.6(a)(a-1).

    • Clarifies that FNS has authority to require State directors to complete additional training topics and/or hours specified by FNS, as needed, to promote Program integrity or to address other critical Program issues. See § 235.11(g)(3).

    • Clarifies that the State agency must ensure that State agency staff receives annual training. See § 235.11(g)(4).

    • Clarifies that the State director of school nutrition programs must offer the SFAs 18 hours of training in specific topics, including topics identified by FNS as needed, to promote Program integrity or to address other critical Program issues. See § 235.11(g)(4)(i).

    • Clarifies that the State director of distributing agencies must provide the staff, or ensure staff receives, training in specific topics, including topics identified by FNS, as needed, to promote Program integrity or to address other critical Program issues. See § 235.11(g)(4(ii).

    Recordkeeping Requirements for SFAs and State Agencies

    There are no changes to the proposed recordkeeping requirements. The final rule requires recordkeeping for a period of three years, which is consistent with other recordkeeping requirements established in Part 210. See § 210.15(b)(8), § 210.20(b)(15) and § 235.11(g)(5).

    Definitions

    There are no changes to the proposed definitions. The final rule codifies proposed definitions for “School nutrition program directors,” “School nutrition program managers,” and “School nutrition program staff” in § 210.2.

    IV. Professional Standards Requirements: Summary Charts

    This final rule establishes the following hiring standards for new State agency directors:

    Summary of Hiring Standards for New State Agency Directors State director of school nutrition program State director of distributing agencies Minimum Education Standards (required) (new directors only) A bachelor's degree with an academic major in areas including food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field A bachelor's degree with any academic major. Knowledge & Experience Extensive relevant knowledge and experience in areas such as institutional food service operations, management, business, and/or nutrition education. Skills & Abilities Additional abilities and skills needed to lead, manage, and supervise people to support the mission of Child Nutrition Programs.

    This final rule establishes the following annual continuing education/training standards for all State agency directors:

    Summary of Training Standards for All State Agency Directors State director of school nutrition programs State director of distributing agencies • Each school year, must complete at least 15 hours of annual continuing education/training in core areas, such as nutrition, operations, administration, communications, and marketing Additional hours and topics may be specified by FNS annually, as necessary
  • • Must also provide or ensure that State agency staff receives annual continuing education/training
  • • Must provide the SFAs at least 18 hours annually of training in topics such as administrative practices (training in application, certification, verification, meal counting and meal claiming procedures); the accuracy of approvals for free and reduced price meals; the identification of reimbursable meals at the point of service; nutrition; health and food safety standards; the efficient and effective use of USDA foods; and any other appropriate topics, as determined by FNS, to ensure program compliance and integrity
  • • Each school year, must complete at least 15 hours of annual continuing education/training in core areas, such as nutrition, operations, administration, communications, and marketing Additional hours and topics may be specified by FNS annually, as necessary.
  • • Must also provide or ensure that State agency staff receives annual continuing education/training in topics such as the efficient and effective use of USDA donated foods; inventory rotation and control; health and food safety standards; and any other appropriate topics, as determined by FNS, to ensure program compliance and integrity.
  • This final rule establishes the following hiring standards for new school nutrition program directors:

    Summary of School Nutrition Program Director Professional Standards by Local Educational Agency Size Minimum requirements for directors Student enrollment 2,499 or less Student enrollment 2,500-9,999 Student enrollment 10,000 or more Minimum Education Standards (required) (new directors only) Bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with academic major or concentration in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field Bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with academic major or concentration in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field; Bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with academic major or concentration in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field; OR OR OR Bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with any academic major or area of concentration, and a State-recognized certificate for school nutrition directors; Bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with any academic major or area of concentration, and a State-recognized certificate for school nutrition directors; Bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with any academic major or area of concentration, and a State-recognized certificate for school nutrition directors; OR OR OR Associate's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with academic major or concentration in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field; and at least one year of relevant school nutrition programs experience;
  • OR
  • High school diploma (or GED) and 3 years of relevant experience in school nutrition programs
  • Bachelor's degree in any academic major and at least 2 years of relevant school nutrition programs experience
  • OR
  • Associate's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with academic major or concentration in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field; and at least 2 years of relevant school nutrition programs experience
  • Bachelor's degree in any major and at least 5 years experience in management of school nutrition programs.
    Minimum Education Standards (preferred) (new directors only) Directors hired without an associate's degree are strongly encouraged to work toward attaining associate's degree upon hiring Directors hired without a bachelor's degree strongly encouraged to work toward attaining bachelor's degree upon hiring Master's degree, or willingness to work toward master's degree, preferred. At least one year of management experience, preferably in school nutrition, strongly recommended. At least 3 credit hours at the university level in food service management plus at least 3 credit hours in nutritional sciences at time of hiring strongly preferred. Minimum Prior Training Standards (required) (new directors only) At least 8 hours of food safety training is required either not more than 5 years prior to their starting date or completed within 30 calendar days of employee's start date.

    This final rule establishes the following annual continuing education/training requirements for all school nutrition program directors, managers, and staff:

    Summary of Required Minimum Continuing Education/Training Standards for All Local Educational Agency Sizes New and Current Directors Each year, at least 12 hours of annual continuing education/training.
  • Includes topics such as:
  • • Administrative practices (including training in application, certification, verification, meal counting, and meal claiming procedures), and
  • • Any specific topics required by FNS, as needed, to address Program integrity or other critical issues.
  • This required continuing education/training is in addition to the food safety training required in the first year of employment.
  • New and Current Managers Each year, at least 10 hours of annual continuing education/training.
  • Includes topics such as:
  • • Administrative practices (including training in application, certification, verification, meal counting, and meal claiming procedures),
  • • The identification of reimbursable meals at the point of service.
  • • Nutrition, health and safety standards, and
  • • Any specific topics required by FNS, as needed, to address Program integrity or other critical issues.
  • New and Current Staff (other than the director and managers) that work an average of at least 20 hours per week Each year, at least 6 hours of annual continuing education/training.
  • Includes topics such as:
  • • Free and reduced price eligibility,
  • • Application, certification, and verification procedures,
  • • The identification of reimbursable meals at the point of service.
  • • Nutrition, health and safety standards, and
  • • Any specific topics required by FNS, as needed, to address Program integrity or other critical issues.
  • New and Current Part-Time Staff (working less than 20 hours per week) Each year, at least 4 hours of annual continuing education/training (regardless of number of part-time hours).
    V. Implementation Resources

    To assist with implementation of the professional standards, USDA has established a Web site (http://professionalstandards.nal.usda.gov) that provides an extensive database of training opportunities and resources covering the four core training areas: Nutrition, operations, administration, and communications/marketing. Information on specific training objectives and training topics in each area will be available on the Web site as well. School nutrition program personnel may conduct advanced searches within the database to identify free or low-cost training opportunities and resources in a variety of formats. On-line and in-person trainings are included in the database. Sources of training include NFSMI, State agencies, universities/colleges, associations, and other groups. In addition, FNS is developing a certificate system to help SFAs recognize various levels of training achievement. Details about the certificate system will be provided separately.

    To assist individuals in tracking their training, a downloadable tool will be available for tracking the training individuals have completed. It can be used by individual employees or by managers or directors for their entire staff. State agencies will find the tool helpful when they complete the administrative reviews.

    A Professional Standards Guide will contain all the essential information needed to understand the professional standards requirements for school nutrition employees at all levels. It will be available in hard copy as well as on the internet. Additional materials for informing school officials about the new standards are being developed as well.

    In addition, USDA will award competitive grants to State agencies to assist with implementation of the professional standards requirements. Up to $150,000 may be requested per State agency for the anticipated funding period of October 1, 2015-September 31, 2017.

    VI. Procedural Matters Executive Orders 12866 and 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). Executive Order 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 to be not significant and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in conformance with Executive Order 12866.

    Regulatory Impact Analysis

    This rule has been designated as not significant by the Office of Management and Budget; therefore, a Regulatory Impact Analysis is not required.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires Agencies to analyze the impact of rulemaking on small entities and consider alternatives that would minimize any significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities. Pursuant to that review, it has been determined that this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final rule will establish hiring standards for local educational agencies of various sizes (2,499 or less students, 2,500-9,999 students, and 10,000 or more students). The hiring standards were developed with stakeholders' input, and resemble the current educational level attained by most school nutrition program directors nationwide. The standards, based on minimum educational levels ranging from high school to bachelor's degree, will apply to new employees only; current program directors will be exempt from the standards. The final rule simplifies implementation of the hiring standards in small local educational agencies by reducing the required years of experience for individuals with a high school diploma. The final rule also reduces and phases in the required annual training hours for all employees to minimize the impact on the local educational agencies.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Department generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Department to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.

    This final rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

    Executive Order 12372

    The NSLP and State Administrative Expense Funds are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs under 10.555 and 10.560, respectively. For the reasons set forth in the final rule in 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, and related Notice (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), this program is included in the scope of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.

    Federalism Summary Impact Statement

    Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments. Where such actions have federalism implications, agencies are directed to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories called for under Section (6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13121.

    Prior Consultation With State Officials

    FNS headquarters and regional offices have ongoing, formal and informal discussions with State agency officials regarding the Child Nutrition Programs and policy issues. Prior to this rulemaking, FNS held several conference calls and meetings with State agencies to discuss the statutory requirements that are the foundation for this rule. FNS also discussed the professional standards statutory requirements with program operators at their State conferences. In addition, FNS received 2,204 public comments in response to the proposed rule (79 FR 6488). These various forms of consultation produced valuable input that has been considered in drafting this final rule.

    Nature of Concerns and the Need To Issue This Rule

    The key concern raised by State agencies and local educational agencies was the feasibility of the hiring standards for local educational agencies, especially those with than 500 students. Stakeholders also requested clarification of the annual training topics, and expressed concern about the required number of annual training hours and the possible training costs. These concerns are discussed in the preamble.

    Extent to Which We Meet Those Concerns

    FNS has considered the impact of this final rule on State and local operators, and has developed a rule that will implement the professional standards requirements in the most effective and least burdensome manner. The final rule includes several changes to facilitate implementation at all local educational agencies. For example, the final rule modifies some of the hiring standards to be more accepting of relevant work experience, reduces the required annual training hours for all local educational agencies, and phases in the annual training requirements. The rule also clarifies that program funds may be used to pay for employee training that is reasonable, allocable and necessary.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is intended to have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full and timely implementation. However, FNS does not expect significant inconsistencies between this final rule and existing State or local hiring regulations. The hiring standards were developed with input from State agencies. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of the final rule, all applicable administrative procedures under § 210.18(q) or § 235.11(f) must be exhausted.

    Civil Rights Impact Analysis

    FNS has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the Department Regulation 4300-4, “Civil Rights Impact Analysis”, and 1512-1, “Regulatory Decision Making Requirements,” to identify and address any major civil rights impacts the final rule might have on minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. After a careful review of the proposed rule's intent and provisions, FNS has determined that this final rule is not intended to limit or reduce in any way the ability of protected classes of individuals to receive benefits on the basis of their race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability, nor is it intended to have a differential impact on minority owned or operated business establishments, and women-owned or operated business establishments that participate in the Child Nutrition Programs. The final rule establishes minimum educational requirements for new hires, ranging from a high school diploma/GED to a bachelor's degree, and annual training requirements for all employees. Current school nutrition program employees are exempt from the new hiring standards. The professional standards established by this rule are intended to help all employees gain knowledge and skills to perform their duties effectively, and are not expected to be a hiring obstacle for the protected classes.

    Executive Order 13175

    Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects 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.

    FNS provides regularly scheduled quarterly consultation sessions as a venue for collaborative conversations with Tribal officials or their designees. The most recent quarterly consultation sessions were held on February 19, 2014; May 21, 2014; August 20, 2014; and November 19, 2014. At the February 2014 consultation, FNS advised the Tribal officials that the proposed rule on professional standards had been published and encouraged participants to submit public comments. There was only one question from a participant seeking to clarify who was covered by the proposed rule. No questions related to professional standards arose at subsequent Tribal consultations. FNS will respond in a timely and meaningful manner to any Tribal government request for consultation concerning the professional standards. We are unaware of any current Tribal laws that could be in conflict with this final rule.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; see 5 CFR part 1320) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve all collections of information by a Federal agency from the public before they can be implemented. Respondents are not required to respond to any collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB control number. This is a new collection. The provisions in this rule create new burden which will be merged into a currently approved information collection titled “National School Lunch Program” (NSLP), OMB Number 0584-0006, which expires on February 29, 2016.

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection requirements included in this final rule, which were filed under 0584-0588, have been submitted for approval to OMB. When OMB notifies us of its decision, we will publish a document in the Federal Register providing notice of the action.

    E-Government Act Compliance

    The Department 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.

    List of Subjects 7 CFR Part 210

    Children, Commodity School Program, Food assistance programs, Grant programs-health, Grant programs- education, School breakfast and lunch programs, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    7 CFR Part 235

    Administrative practice and procedure, Food assistance programs, Grant programs-health, Grant programs- education, School breakfast and lunch programs, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 210 and 235 are amended as follows:

    PART 210—NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for part 210 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 1751-1760, 1779.

    2. In § 210.2, add definitions of School nutrition program directors, School nutrition program managers, and School nutrition program staff in alphabetical order.

    The additions read as follows:

    § 210.2 Definitions.

    School nutrition program directors are those individuals directly responsible for the management of the day-to-day operations of school food service for all participating schools under the jurisdiction of the school food authority.

    School nutrition program managers are those individuals directly responsible for the management of the day-to-day operations of school food service for a participating school(s).

    School nutrition program staff are those individuals, without managerial responsibilities, involved in day-to-day operations of school food service for a participating school(s).

    3. Amend § 210.15 as follows: a. In paragraph (b)(6), remove the word “and” at the end; b. In paragraph (b)(7), remove the period and add “; and” in its place; and c. Add paragraph (b)(8).

    The addition reads as follows:

    § 210.15 Reporting and recordkeeping

    (b) * * *

    (8) Records for a three year period to demonstrate the school food authority's compliance with the professional standards for school nutrition program directors, managers and personnel established in § 210.30.

    4. Amend § 210.18 by adding new paragraph (h)(7) to read as follows:
    § 210.18 Administrative reviews.

    (h) * * *

    (7) Professional standards. The State agency shall ensure the school food authority complies with the professional standards for school nutrition program directors, managers and personnel established in § 210.30.

    5. Amend § 210.20 as follows: a. In paragraph (b)(13), remove the word “and” at the end; b. In paragraph (b)(14), remove the period and add “; and” in its place; and c. Add paragraph (b)(15).

    The addition reads as follows:

    § 210.20 Reporting and recordkeeping.

    (b) * * *

    (15) Records for a three year period to demonstrate compliance with the professional standards for State directors of school nutrition programs established in § 235.11(g) of this chapter.

    §§ 210.30 and 210.31 [Redesignated as §§ 210.31 and 210.32]
    6. Redesignate § 210.30 and § 210.31 as § 210.31 and § 210.32, respectively. 7. Add a new § 210.30 to read as follows:
    § 210.30 School nutrition program professional standards.

    (a) General. School food authorities that operate the National School Lunch Program, or the School Breakfast Program (7 CFR part 220), must establish and implement professional standards for school nutrition program directors, managers, and staff, as defined in § 210.2.

    (b) Minimum standards for all school nutrition program directors. Each school food authority must ensure that all newly hired school nutrition program directors meet minimum hiring standards and ensure that all new and existing directors have completed the minimum annual training/education requirements for school nutrition program directors, as set forth below:

    (1) Hiring standards. All school nutrition program directors hired on or after July 1, 2015, must meet the following minimum educational requirements, as applicable:

    (i) School nutrition program directors with local educational agency enrollment of 2,499 students or fewer. Directors must meet the requirements in either paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A), (B), (C), or (D) of this section.

    (A) A bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with an academic major or concentration in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field;

    (B) A bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with any academic major or area of concentration, and a State-recognized certificate for school nutrition directors;

    (C) An associate's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with an academic major or area of concentration in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field and at least one year of relevant school nutrition program experience; or

    (D) A high school diploma or equivalency (such as the general educational development diploma), and at least three years of relevant school nutrition program experience. For a local educational agency with less than 500 students, the State agency has discretion to approve the hire of a director that meets the minimum educational requirement but has less than the required relevant school nutrition program experience. Directors hired under the criteria listed in this paragraph are strongly encouraged to work toward attaining an associate's degree in an academic major in the fields listed in this paragraph.

    (ii) School nutrition program directors with local educational agency enrollment of 2,500 to 9,999 students. Directors must meet the requirements in either paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A), (B), (C), or (D) of this section.

    (A) A bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with an academic major or concentration in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field;

    (B) A bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with any academic major or area of concentration, and a State-recognized certificate for school nutrition directors;

    (C) A bachelor's degree in any academic major and at least two years of relevant experience in school nutrition programs; or

    (D) An associate's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with an academic major or area of concentration in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field and at least two years of relevant school nutrition program experience. Directors hired with an associate's degree are strongly encouraged to work toward attaining a bachelor's degree in an academic major in the fields listed in this paragraph.

    (iii) School nutrition program directors with local educational agency enrollment of 10,000 or more students. Directors must meet the requirements in either paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A), (B), or (C) of this section.

    (A) A bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with an academic major or area of concentration in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field;

    (B) A bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with any academic major or area of concentration, and a State-recognized certificate for school nutrition directors; or

    (C) A bachelor's degree in any major and at least five years experience in management of school nutrition programs.

    (D) School food authorities are strongly encouraged to seek out individuals who possess a master's degree or are willing to work toward a master's degree in the fields listed in this paragraph. At least one year of management experience, preferably in school nutrition, is strongly recommended. It is also strongly recommended that directors have at least three credit hours at the university level in food service management and at least three credit hours in nutritional sciences at the time of hire.

    (iv) At the discretion of the State agency, acting school nutrition program directors expected to serve for more than 30 business days must meet the hiring standards established in § 230.30(b)(1) of this chapter.

    (v) School nutrition program directors for all local educational agency sizes. All school nutrition program directors, for all local educational agency sizes, must have completed at least eight hours of food safety training within five years prior to their starting date or complete eight hours of food safety training within 30 calendar days of their starting date. At the discretion of the State agency, all school nutrition program directors, regardless of their starting date, may be required to complete eight hours of food safety training every five years.

    (2) Summary of school nutrition program director hiring/standards. The following chart summarizes the hiring standards established in this section:

    ER02MR15.000

    (3) Continuing education/training standards for all school nutrition program directors. Each school year, the school food authority must ensure that all school nutrition program directors, (including acting directors, at the discretion of the State agency) complete annual continuing education/training. For the school year beginning July 1, 2015, program directors must complete eight hours of annual training. Beginning July 1, 2016, twelve hours of annual training are required. The annual training must cover administrative practices (including training in application, certification, verification, meal counting, and meal claiming procedures), as applicable, and any other specific topics identified by FNS, as needed, to address Program integrity or other critical issues. Continuing education/training required under this paragraph is in addition to the food safety training required in the first year of employment under paragraph (b)(1)(v) of this section.

    (c) Continuing education/training standards for all school nutrition program managers. Each school year, the school food authority must ensure that all school nutrition program managers have completed annual continuing education/training. For the school year beginning July 1, 2015, program managers must complete six hours of annual training. Beginning July 1, 2016, ten hours of annual training are required. The annual training must include, but is not limited to, the following topics, as applicable:

    (1) Administrative practices (including training in application, certification, verification, meal counting, and meal claiming procedures);

    (2) The identification of reimbursable meals at the point of service;

    (3) Nutrition;

    (4) Health and safety standards; and

    (5) Any specific topics identified by FNS, as needed, to address Program integrity or other critical issues.

    (d) Continuing education/training standards for all staff with responsibility for school nutrition programs. Each school year, the school food authority must ensure that all staff with responsibility for school nutrition programs that work an average of at least 20 hours per week, other than school nutrition program directors and managers, completes annual training in areas applicable to their job. For the school year beginning July 1, 2015, staff must complete four hours of annual training. Beginning July 1, 2016, six hours of annual training are required. Part-time staff working an average of less than 20 hours per week must complete four hours of annual training beginning July 1, 2015. The annual training must include, but is not limited to, the following topics, as applicable to their position and responsibilities:

    (1) Free and reduced price eligibility;

    (2) Application, certification, and verification procedures;

    (3) The identification of reimbursable meals at the point of service;

    (4) Nutrition;

    (5) Health and safety standards; and

    (6) Any specific topics identified by FNS, as needed, to address Program integrity or other critical issues.

    (e) Summary of required minimum continued education/training standards and flexibilities. The annual training requirements for school nutrition program managers, directors, and staff summarized in the following chart are effective beginning July 1, 2015. Program managers, directors, and staff hired on or after January 1 of each school year must complete half of their required annual training hours before the end of the school year. At the discretion of the State agency:

    (1) Acting and temporary staff, substitutes, and volunteers must complete training in one or more of the topics listed in paragraph (d) of this section, as applicable, within 30 calendar days of their start date; and

    (2) School nutrition program personnel may carry over excess annual training hours to an immediately previous or subsequent school year and demonstrate compliance with the training requirements over a period of two school years, provided that some training hours are completed each school year.

    ER02MR15.001

    (f) Use of food service funds for training costs. Costs associated with annual continuing education/training required under paragraphs (b)(3), (c) and (d) of this section are allowed provided they are reasonable, allocable, and necessary in accordance with the cost principles set forth in 2 CFR part 225, Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments (OMB Circular A-87). However, food service funds must not be used to pay for the cost of college credits incurred by an individual to meet the hiring requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv) and in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

    (g) School food authority oversight. Each school year, the school food authority director must document compliance with the requirements of this section for all staff with responsibility for school nutrition programs, including directors, managers, and staff. Documentation must be adequate to establish, to the State's satisfaction during administrative reviews, that employees are meeting the minimum professional standards. The school food authority must certify that:

    (1) The school nutrition programs director meets the hiring standards and training requirements set forth in paragraph (b) of this section; and

    (2) Each employee has completed the applicable training requirements in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section no later than the end of each school year.

    8. Revise newly redesignated § 210.32 to read as follows:
    § 210.32 OMB control numbers.

    The following control numbers have been assigned to the information collection requirements in 7 CFR part 210 by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law 96-511.

    7 CFR section where
  • requirements
  • are described
  • Current OMB control No.
    210.3(b) 0584-0067 210.4(b) 0584-0002 210.5(d) 0584-0006; 0584-0002; 0584-0067; 0584-0567 (to be merged with 0584-0006) 210.7 0584-0567 (to be merged with 0584-0006) 210.8 0584-0284; 0584-0006 210.9 0584-0006 210.10 0584-0006; 0584-0494 210.11 0584-0576 (to be merged with 0584-0006) 210.13 0584-0006 210.14 0584-0006 210.15 0584-0006 210.17 0584-0075 210.18 0584-0006 210.19 0584-0006 210.20 0584-0006; 0584-0002; 0584-0067 210.23 0584-0006
    PART 235—STATE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE FUNDS 9. The authority citation for Part 235 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 7 and 10 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, 80 Stat. 888, 889, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1776, 1779).

    10. Amend § 235.4 by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
    § 235.4 Allocation of funds to States.

    (b) * * *

    (2) $30,000 to each State which administers the Food Distribution Program (part 250 of this chapter) in schools and/or institutions which participate in programs under parts 210, 220, and 226 of this chapter; provided that the State meets the training requirements set forth in § 235.11(g).

    11. Amend § 235.6 by adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (a-1) to read as follows:
    § 235.6 Use of funds.

    (a-1) * * * State agencies may also use these funds for the purposes of State director annual continuing education/training as described in § 235.11(g)(3); however, costs associated with obtaining college credits to meet the hiring standards in § 235.11(g)(1) and (2) are not allowable.

    12. Amend § 235.11 as follows: a. In paragraph (b)(2)(iv), remove the word “and” at the end; b. In paragraph (b)(2)(v), remove the period and add “; and” in its place; c. Add paragraph (b)(2)(vi); and d. Add paragraph (g).

    The additions read as follows:

    § 235.11 Other provisions.

    (b) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (vi) Meeting the professional standards required in paragraph (g) of this section.

    (g) Professional standards. State agencies must meet the minimum hiring and training standards established by FNS.

    (1) Hiring standards for State directors of school nutrition programs. Beginning July 1, 2015, newly hired State agency directors with responsibility for the administration of the National School Lunch Program under part 210 of this chapter and the School Breakfast Program under part 220 of this chapter must have:

    (i) Bachelor's degree with an academic major in areas including food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field;

    (ii) Extensive relevant knowledge and experience in areas such as institutional food service operations, management, business, and/or nutrition education (experience in three or more of these areas highly recommended); and

    (iii) Additional abilities and skills needed to lead, manage and supervise people to support the mission of Child Nutrition programs.

    (iv) It is also strongly preferred that new hires possess:

    (A) Master's degree with an academic major in areas including food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field;

    (B) At least five years of experience leading people in successfully accomplishing major multi-faceted projects related to child nutrition and/or institutional foodservice management; and

    (C) Professional certification in food and nutrition, food service management, school business management or a related field as determined by FNS.

    (2) Hiring standards for State directors of distributing agencies. Beginning July 1, 2015, newly hired State agency directors with responsibility for the administration of the distribution of USDA donated foods under part 250 of this chapter must have:

    (i) Bachelor's degree in any academic major;

    (ii) Extensive relevant knowledge and experience in areas such as institutional food service operations, management, business, and/or nutrition education; and

    (iii) Additional abilities and skills needed to lead, manage and supervise people to support the mission of Child Nutrition programs.

    (iv) It is also strongly preferred that new hires possess at least five years of experience in institutional food service operations.

    (3) Continuing education/training standards for State directors of school nutrition programs and distributing agencies. Each school year, all State directors with responsibility for the National School Lunch Program under part 210 of this chapter and the School Breakfast Program under part 220 of this chapter, as well as those responsible for the distribution of USDA donated foods under part 250 of this chapter, must complete a minimum of 15 hours of training in core areas that may include nutrition, operations, administration, communications and marketing. Additional hours and topics may be specified by FNS, as needed, to address Program integrity and other critical issues.

    (4) Provision of annual training. At least annually, State agencies with responsibility for the National School Lunch Program under part 210 of this chapter and the School Breakfast Program under part 220 of this chapter, as well as State agencies with responsibility for the distribution of USDA donated foods under part 250 of this chapter, must provide or ensure that State agency staff receive annual continuing education/training.

    (i) Each State agency with responsibility for the National School Lunch Program under part 210 of this chapter and the School Breakfast Program under part 220 of this chapter must provide a minimum of 18 hours of continuing education/training to school food authorities. Topics include administrative practices (including training in application, certification, verification, meal counting, and meal claiming procedures); the accuracy of approvals for free and reduced price meals; the identification of reimbursable meals at the point of service; nutrition; health and food safety standards; the efficient and effective use of USDA donated foods; and any other appropriate topics, as determined by FNS, to ensure program compliance and integrity or to address other critical issues.

    (ii) Each State agency with responsibility for the distribution of USDA donated foods under part 250 of this chapter must provide or ensure receipt of continuing education/training to State distribution agency staff on an annual basis. Topics may include the efficient and effective use of USDA donated foods; inventory rotation and control; health and food safety standards; and any other appropriate topics, as determined by FNS, to ensure program compliance and integrity or to address other critical issues.

    (5) Records and recordkeeping. State agencies must annually retain records for a period of three years to adequately demonstrate compliance with the professional standards for State directors of school nutrition programs established in this paragraph.

    (6) Failure to comply. Failure to comply with the professional standards in this paragraph may result in sanctions as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.

    13. Revise § 235.12 to read as follows:
    § 235.12 Information collection/recordkeeping—OMB assigned control numbers. 7 CFR Section where
  • requirements are
  • described
  • Current OMB control No.
    235.3(b) 0584-0067. 235.4 0584-0067. 235.5(b), (d) 0584-0067. 235.7(a), (b) 0584-0067. 235.9(c), (d) 0584-0067. 235.11 0584-0067. 210.7 0584-0067.
    Dated: February 24, 2015. Audrey Rowe, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04234 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0139; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-133-AD; Amendment 39-18081; AD 2015-02-14] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2009-20-05 for certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 2009-20-05 required one-time inspections for cracking, damage, correct installation, and correct adjustment of the main landing gear (MLG) door hinge and actuator fittings on the keel beam, and corrective actions if necessary. This new AD expands the applicability, reduces the compliance time, and requires repetitive inspections instead of the one-time inspection. This AD also requires revising the maintenance or inspection program. This AD was prompted by reports of cracks on fittings that had successfully passed certain required inspections. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking on the MLG door hinge fitting and actuator fitting on the keel beam, which could lead to in-flight detachment of an MLG door, possibly resulting in injury to persons on the ground and/or damage to the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective April 6, 2015.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 6, 2015.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of November 3, 2009 (74 FR 49795, September 29, 2009).

    ADDRESSES:

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0139; or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0139.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2009-20-05, Amendment 39-16028 (74 FR 49795, September 29, 2009). AD 2009-20-05 applied to certain Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2014 (79 FR 13925).

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0118, dated July 4, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Several cases of cracks have reportedly been found on the MLG door hinge fitting and on the MLG door actuator fitting on the keel beam.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-flight detachment of a MLG door, possibly resulting in injury to persons on the ground and/or damage to the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued EASA AD 2007-0161 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2007_0161_superseded.pdf/AD_2007-0161_1] [which corresponds to FAA AD 2009-20-05, Amendment 39-16028 (74 FR 49795, September 29, 2009)], to require a one-time inspection of the affected fittings and accomplishment of the applicable corrective actions.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, some cracks have been found on fittings that had successfully passed the one-time inspection as required by EASA AD 2007-0161. Analyses of these cracks have lead Airbus to reconsider the repetitive inspections of the MLG door hinge and actuator fittings on the keel beam, in accordance with the ALI task 533154-02-1 requirement as defined in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI) Document, by introducing more restrictive inspection thresholds and intervals.

    For the reasons stated above, this [EASA] AD, which supersedes EASA AD 2007-0161 and the ALI [Airworthiness Limitations Item] task 533154-02-1 requirements, expands the [EASA] AD applicability to all A318/A319/A320/A321 aeroplanes and requires repetitive inspections of the MLG door hinge and actuator fittings on the keel beam at a new threshold and interval and, depending on findings, the accomplishment of applicable corrective actions.

    The inspections are detailed, high frequency eddy current (HFEC), and ultrasonic inspections for cracking, damage, correct installation, and correct adjustment, as applicable. The corrective actions include correcting incorrect adjustments and installations, and repair. This AD also requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to remove ALI task 533154-02-1. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0139-0002. Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 13925, March 12, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Requests To Reference Revised Service Bulletins

    Airbus and United Airlines (UAL) requested that we reference Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1195, Revision 05, dated November 22, 2013; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1196, Revision 04, dated November 22, 2013; as appropriate sources of service information.

    We agree with the commenters' requests to reference Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1195, Revision 05, dated November 22, 2013; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1196, Revision 04, dated November 22, 2013; as appropriate sources of service information for accomplishing the required actions in this AD. No additional work is specified by these service bulletin revisions for airplanes modified by any previous issue. We added a new paragraph (l) to this AD and redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly. New paragraph (l) gives credit for actions accomplished using certain service information before the effective date of this AD.

    We have revised paragraph (i)(1) of this AD to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1195, Revision 05, dated November 22, 2013, and added paragraph (l)(1) to this AD to give credit for actions accomplished previously using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1195, Revision 03, dated November 8, 2011; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1195, Revision 04, dated August 22, 2012.

    We have revised paragraph (i)(2) of this AD to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1196, Revision 04, dated November 22, 2013; and added paragraph (l)(2) to this AD to give credit for actions accomplished using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1196, Revision 02, dated November 8, 2011; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1196, Revision 03, dated August 22, 2012.

    Request To Refer to Additional Service Information for Task Removal

    UAL requested that we revise paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (79 FR 13925, March 12, 2014) to reference Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/S-M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 10, dated October 2009; or Issue 11, dated September 2010; in addition to Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitations Items (DT ALI), Revision 01, dated April 4, 2012. UAL stated that Task 533154-02-1 of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitations Items (DT ALI), Revision 01, dated April 4, 2012, is “superseded by Airbus Service Bulletins A320-53-1195 and A320-53-1196.” UAL explained that operators that comply with Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitations Items (DT ALI), Revision 01, dated April 4, 2012, should already have removed Task 533154-02-1 from their maintenance/inspection programs. UAL also explained that operators might not have Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitations Items (DT ALI), Revision 01, dated April 4, 2012, in their maintenance/inspection programs and instead might have Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 10, dated October 2009; or Issue 11, dated September 2010.

    We agree with the commenter's request to refer to Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 10, dated October 2009; or Issue 11, dated September 2010; in paragraph (k) of this AD. This revision will ensure that the actions specified by Task 533154-02-1 are removed from an operator's maintenance inspection program.

    Request To Remove Reporting Requirement

    UAL requested that we not require reporting, as described in the service information, if no damage and/or cracks are found during the inspection of the hinge fittings. UAL stated that reporting has insignificant value and is a burden on the operator. UAL explained that, since the inspections must be repetitively accomplished, the rate of reporting no findings will be significant without adding valued information, and that any damage/cracks will be reported to Airbus when they are contacted for repair approval.

    We disagree with the commenter's request to remove the reporting action required by this AD. A reporting requirement is instrumental in ensuring that we can gather as much information as possible regarding the extent and nature of the identified unsafe condition, especially in cases where that data may not be available through other established means. Also, the commenter did not provided any rationale concerning how eliminating the reporting requirement will ensure that future service information from Airbus will continue to maintain operational safety of the fleet. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request To Remove Requirement To Refer to This AD in Repair Approvals

    UAL requested that we remove the statement “for a repair method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD” in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD (79 FR 13925, March 12, 2014). UAL stated that this statement could have a significant impact on the financial cost and customer support between the operator and Airbus. UAL also stated that this statement should be removed for those general reasons stated in A4A's comment on the same topic in NPRM 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), which stated, among other justifications, that “The added costs for this AD and all that may follow bearing the new procedural wording represent an unfair burden placed solely on U.S. registered aircraft.”

    We concur with the commenter's request to remove the requirement to include the AD reference in repair approvals. Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD. The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.

    In the NPRM (79 FR 13925, March 12, 2014), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase “its delegated agent” to include “the Design Approval Holder (DAH) with a State of Design Authority's design organization approval (DOA)” to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the AD.

    Comments were provided to the NPRM (79 FR 13925, March 12, 2014) and to an NPRM referenced by the commenter (i.e., Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013)) about these proposed changes. One commenter to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD, United Parcel Service (UPS), stated the following: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.”

    This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, EASA, or Airbus's EASA DOA.

    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.

    This clarification does not remove flexibility afforded previously by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the AD Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.

    Other commenters to NPRM 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) pointed out that in many cases the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the foreign authority's MCAI may have been issued some time before the FAA AD. Therefore, the DOA may have provided U.S. operators with an approved repair, developed with full awareness of the unsafe condition, before the FAA AD is issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with the FAA AD, the operator would be required to go back to the manufacturer's DOA and obtain a new approval document, adding time and expense to the compliance process with no safety benefit.

    Based on these comments, we removed the requirement from this AD that the DAH-provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a requirement in the future, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals consider the unsafe condition addressed in an AD. Any such requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process, including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate.

    We have also decided not to include a generic reference to either the “delegated agent” or the “DAH with State of Design Authority design organization approval,” but instead we will provide the specific delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the DAH.

    Conclusion

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

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 13925, March 12, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 13925, March 12, 2014).

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1195, Revision 05, dated November 22, 2013, which describes procedures for inspections of the MLG door actuator fittings on the keel beam, and corrective actions if necessary. We also reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1196, Revision 04, dated November 22, 2013, which describes procedures for inspections of the MLG door hinge fitting on the keel beam, and corrective actions if necessary. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    Costs of Compliance

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

    The actions that are required by AD 2009-20-05, Amendment 39-16028 (74 FR 49795, September 29, 2009), and retained in this AD take about 28 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2009-20-05 is $2,380 per product.

    We also estimate that it will take about 26 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $1,880,710, or $2,210 per product.

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

    Paperwork Reduction Act

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0139; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2009-20-05, Amendment 39-16028 (74 FR 49795, September 29, 2009), and adding the following new AD: 2015-02-14 Airbus: Amendment 39-18081. Docket No. FAA-2014-0139; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-133-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective April 6, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2009-20-05, Amendment 39-16028 (74 FR 49795, September 29, 2009).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs).

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

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

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

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

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks on the main landing gear (MLG) door hinge fitting and actuator fitting on the keel beam. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking on the MLG door hinge fitting and actuator fitting on the keel beam, which could lead to in-flight detachment of an MLG door, possibly resulting in injury to persons on the ground and/or damage to the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained One-Time Inspections and Corrective Action

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of AD 2009-20-05, Amendment 39-16028 (74 FR 49795, September 29, 2009), with specific delegation approval language. For airplanes having serial numbers up to MSN 2850 inclusive, except MSNs 0115, 0184, 0782, 1151, 1190, 2650, 2675, 2706, 2801, and 2837: Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.

    (1) At the latest of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), and (g)(1)(iii) of this AD: Perform detailed visual, high frequency eddy current (HFEC), and ultrasonic inspections (for cracking, damage, correct installation, and correct adjustment, as applicable) of the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) MLG door actuator fitting on the keel beam, and do all applicable corrective actions before further flight, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all actions required by this paragraph in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1195, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated April 5, 2007; except where that service information specifies that the applicable corrective action is contacting Airbus, contact Airbus for repair instructions and repair before further flight. As of the effective date of this AD, where that service information specifies that the applicable corrective action is contacting Airbus, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (i) Within 6,000 flight cycles since first flight.

    (ii) Within 1,500 flight cycles after November 3, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-20-05, Amendment 39-16028 (74 FR 49795, September 29, 2009)).

    (iii) Within 6,000 flight cycles from the latest MLG door actuator fitting replacement.

    (2) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD: Perform detailed visual and HFEC inspections (for cracking, damage, correct installation, and correct adjustment, as applicable) of the LH and RH MLG door hinge fitting on the keel beam, and do all applicable corrective actions before further flight, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all actions required by this paragraph in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1196, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated November 29, 2006; except where that service information specifies that the applicable corrective action is contacting Airbus, contact Airbus for repair instructions and repair before further flight. As of the effective date of this AD, where that service information specifies that the applicable corrective action is contacting Airbus, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

    (i) Within 4,500 flight cycles since first flight.

    (ii) Within 1,500 flight cycles after November 3, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-20-05, Amendment 39-16028 (74 FR 49795, September 29, 2009)).

    (h) Retained Exception to Paragraph (g) of This AD

    This paragraph restates the exception specified in paragraph (f)(4) of AD 2009-20-05, Amendment 39-16028 (74 FR 49795, September 29, 2009). Where the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1195, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated April 5, 2007; or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1196, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated November 29, 2006; as applicable; specify to submit a report where no damage or crack is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD: Send the report to Airbus using the applicable reporting sheet in Appendix 01 of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1195, Revision 02, dated April 5, 2007; or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1196, Revision 01, dated November 29, 2006. Send the report at the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.

    (1) If the inspection was done on or after November 3, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-20-05, Amendment 39-16028 (74 FR 49795, September 29, 2009)): Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.

    (2) If the inspection was done before November 3, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-20-05, Amendment 39-16028 (74 FR 49795, September 29, 2009)): Submit the report within 30 days after November 3, 2009.

    (i) New Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Action

    (1) At the latest of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(ii), and (i)(1)(iii) of this AD: Perform detailed, HFEC, and ultrasonic inspections (for cracking, damage, correct installation, and correct adjustment, as applicable) of the LH and RH MLG door actuator fitting on the keel beam, and do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Do all actions required by this paragraph in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1195, Revision 05, dated November 22, 2013; except where that service information specifies that the applicable corrective action is contacting Airbus, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,250 flight cycles.

    (i) Before the accumulation of 3,000 flight cycles since first flight.

    (ii) Within 2,250 flight cycles after the most recent inspection done as described in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1195, or Task 533154-02-1 of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitations Items (DT ALI), as applicable.

    (iii) Within 1,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) At the latest of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i), (i)(2)(ii), and (i)(2)(iii) of this AD: Perform detailed and HFEC inspections (for cracking, damage, correct installation, and correct adjustment, as applicable) of the LH and RH MLG door hinge fitting on the keel beam, and do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Do all actions required by this paragraph in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1196, Revision 04, dated November 22, 2013; except where that service information specifies that the applicable corrective action is contacting Airbus, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles.

    (i) Before the accumulation of 3,000 flight cycles since first flight.

    (ii) Within 3,000 flight cycles after the most recent inspection done as described in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1196, or Task 533154-02-1 of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT ALI), as applicable.

    (iii) Within 1,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.

    (j) New Corrective Action Limitation

    The accomplishment of a corrective action on an airplane, as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of this AD for that airplane.

    (k) New Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    After the effective date of this AD and before further flight after doing the inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to remove Task 533154-02-1 of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitations Items (DT ALI), Revision 01, dated April 4, 2012; Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 10, dated October 2009; or Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96 Issue 11, dated September 2010. The actions required by this AD take precedence over Task 533154-02-1 of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT ALI), Revision 01, dated April 4, 2012; Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 10, dated October 2009; and Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96 Issue 11, dated September 2010.

    (l) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1195, Revision 03, dated November 8, 2011; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1195, Revision 04, dated August 22, 2012; which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1196, Revision 02, dated November 8, 2011; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1196, Revision 03, dated August 22, 2012; which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

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

    (n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0118, dated July 4, 2012, for related information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0139-0002.

    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference in this AD is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (o)(5) and (o)(6) of this AD.

    (o) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on April 6, 2015.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1195, Revision 05, dated November 22, 2013.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1196, Revision 04, dated November 22, 2013.

    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on November 3, 2009 (74 FR 49795, September 29, 2009).

    (i) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1195, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated April 5, 2007.

    (ii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1196, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated November 29, 2006.

    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 4, 2015. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-02692 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0189; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-181-AD; Amendment 39-18099; AD 2015-03-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes, Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). This AD was prompted by a report of chafing found on the overflow sensor harness of the surge tank, and subsequent contact between the electrical wiring and fuel tank structure. This AD requires a one-time inspection for chafing of the overflow sensor harness, and repair if necessary. This AD also requires modification of the sensor harness. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing of the harness and subsequent contact between the electrical wiring and fuel tank structure, which could result in electrical arcing and a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective April 6, 2015.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0189 or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0189.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-227-2125; fax: 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes, Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 8, 2014 (79 FR 19296).

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0193, dated August 23, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes, Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The MCAI states:

    During a scheduled maintenance check on an A300 aeroplane, chafing was found on the surge tank overflow sensor harness. The harness was found to contact the Magnetic Fuel Level Indicator (MFLI) canister.

    Prompted by these findings, DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued [(http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_1999_404_293.pdf/AD_1999-404-293)] to require modification of the harness routing in accordance with the instructions of Airbus SB [service bulletin] A300-28-0058 or SB A300-28-6020, as applicable to aeroplane model.

    Since that [DGAC] AD was issued, maintenance work on modified A300-600 aeroplanes revealed some chafing of the harness, creating a potential contact between the electrical wire and fuel tank structure. Investigations have shown that although measures were taken to prevent contact of the harness with the MFLI (through modification 04489), the installation can be subject to human error. As the MFLI is integral to the access panel in this location, any potential contact with the harness (as a result of incorrect installation) is hidden.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to electrical arcing, possibly resulting in a fuel tank explosion and loss of the aeroplane. To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued SB A300-28-0091 for A300 aeroplanes, SB A300-28-6109 for A300-600 aeroplanes, and A300-28-9022 for A300-600ST aeroplanes.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time inspection of the harness and, depending on findings, corrective actions, as well as replacement of angle brackets by error-proof harness brackets.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0189-0002.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 19296, April 8, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Request To Remove AD Reference in Repair Approvals

    United Parcel Service (UPS) asked that we remove the requirement to include the AD reference in repair approvals, as specified in paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD (79 FR 19296, April 8, 2014), which states “For a repair to be approved, the repair must specifically refer to this AD.” UPS stated the following: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of a mandated Airbus service bulletin.” UPS added that this will result in an increase in alternative method of compliance (AMOC) requests.

    We agree with the commenter's request to remove the requirement that repair approvals specifically refer to this AD, from this AD.

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD. The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.

    In the NPRM (79 FR 19296, April 8, 2014), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase “its delegated agent” to include “the Design Approval Holder (DAH) with a State of Design Authority's design organization approval (DOA)” to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the AD.

    As stated previously, UPS commented that: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.” This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, EASA, or Airbus's EASA DOA.

    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer, that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.

    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an AMOC.

    Commenters to an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) pointed out that in many cases the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the foreign authority's MCAI may have been issued some time before the FAA AD. Therefore, the DOA may have provided U.S. operators with an approved repair, developed with full awareness of the unsafe condition, before the FAA AD is issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with the FAA AD, the operator would be required to go back to the manufacturer's DOA and obtain a new approval document, adding time and expense to the compliance process with no safety benefit.

    Based on these comments, we removed the requirement from this AD that the DAH-provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a requirement in the future, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals consider the unsafe condition addressed in an AD. Any such requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process, including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate.

    We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either the “delegated agent” or the “DAH with State of Design Authority design organization approval,” but instead we have provided the specific delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the DAH.

    Request To Extend the Compliance Time

    UPS asked that we extend the compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79 FR 19296, April 8, 2014) from 30 to 36 months. UPS stated that it expects to accomplish the inspection during its existing C-check interval, which is 30 months. UPS added that in order to perform the inspection and repair at its major maintenance facility during C-checks, it requires an additional 6 months to allow for planning, preparation, and prototyping of the service information. UPS noted that this additional time is for the prototyping effort necessary when a project is initiated; UPS has determined that service information is often revised during accomplishment of the required actions, which makes it difficult to maintain regular maintenance schedules. Therefore, UPS must schedule special visit check lines for accomplishing the actions.

    We do not agree with the commenter's request to extend the compliance time. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for the timely accomplishment of the inspection and subsequent modification. In consideration of these items, as well as the possibility of chafing of the overflow sensor harness, we have determined that a 30-month compliance time will ensure an acceptable level of safety and allow the modification to be done during scheduled maintenance intervals for most affected operators. However, under the provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request To Include Another Source of Service Information

    FedEx Express asked that we allow the use of UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin V-1577 for accomplishing the actions in the NPRM (79 FR 19296, April 8, 2014). FedEx Express stated that it operates 71 Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes, and 65 of those airplanes have had the in-tank fuel quantity system modified by a certain supplemental type certificate (STC), which means Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109, Revision 01, dated December 20, 2013 (referred to as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the actions), cannot be used to accomplish the proposed actions. However, FedEx Express noted that six of its airplanes have the production in-tank fuel quantity system installed, and the referenced service information can be used for those airplanes. FedEx Express stated that the UTC Aerospace Systems service bulletin has not been issued yet; however, after issuance it should be included in the NPRM as a source of service information for accomplishing the proposed actions in order to mitigate the unsafe condition.

    We partially agree with the commenter. We agree that airplanes that have had the in-tank fuel quantity system modified by STC ST00092BO (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/D41C5AE8E46B4901862574900069E004?OpenDocument&Highlight=st00092bo) cannot accomplish the actions proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 19296, April 8, 2014) by using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109, Revision 01, dated December 20, 2013. Since the issuance of the NPRM, UTC Aerospace Systems has issued service bulletin 300723-28-03 (V-1577), dated October 10, 2014, to address the unsafe condition for airplanes that have been modified by supplemental type certificate ST00092BO.

    We do not agree to revise this AD to require UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 300723-28-03 (V-1577), dated October 10, 2014. Instead, we are considering separate rulemaking to require the procedures and compliance time specified in UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 300723-28-03 (V-1577), dated October 10, 2014, for airplanes modified by STC ST00092BO. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (c) of this AD by removing airplanes modified by STC ST00092BO from the applicability of this AD.

    Request To Include Revised Service Information

    FedEx Express asked that Revision 02 of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109 be included for accomplishing the actions in the NPRM (79 FR 19296, April 8, 2014) before the final rule is issued. FedEx Express stated that it reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109, Revision 01, dated December 20, 2013, and submitted its findings to Airbus for incorporation into upcoming Revision 02 before issuance. FedEx Express added that its intent in doing so was to prevent future requests for AMOCs to the FAA.

    We disagree with the commenter's request to include Revision 02 of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109. We are aware that Airbus is considering revising Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109, Revision 01, dated December 20, 2013, to incorporate feedback received from FedEx Express in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. We will consider approving Revision 02 of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109 as an AMOC to the actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, once this service bulletin is released. However, we find that delaying this AD action would be inappropriate in light of the urgency of the identified unsafe condition. Therefore, no change has been made to this AD in this regard.

    Request To Clarify the “Required for Compliance” Instructions

    FedEx Express asked for clarification as to whether the Required for Compliance (RC) note identified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109, Revision 01, dated December 20, 2013, is applicable to the actions specified in the NPRM (79 FR 19296, April 8, 2014) and EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0193, dated August 23, 2013.

    We acknowledge the commenter's concern and provide the following clarification:

    The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directives Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement is a new process for annotating which steps in the service information are “required for compliance” with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's and operator's understanding of AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. In response to the AD Implementation ARC, the FAA released AC 20-176, Revision A, dated June 16, 2014, (http://rgl.avs.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/a78cc91a47b192278625796b0075f419/$FILE/AC%2020-176.pdf); and Order 8110.117 (http://rgl.avs.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/984bb9eb07cdd86986257a7f0070744c/$FILE/Order%208110.117.pdf), which include the concept of RC. The FAA has begun implementing this concept in ADs when we receive service information containing RC steps. Therefore, the RC note does apply to the actions required by this AD when using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109, Revision 01, dated December 20, 2013, to accomplish the required actions. We do not have information concerning how EASA implements the RC concept in its ADs.

    We split paragraph (j)(1) and redesignated the content as paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(1)(i) of this AD, and added paragraph (j)(1)(ii) to this AD to reflect information concerning the RC concept and to explain when it is necessary to request approval of an AMOC.

    Clarification of Inspection Type

    Paragraph (g) of this AD has been revised to clarify the inspection type as a one-time general visual inspection.

    Conclusion

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

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 19296, April 8, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 19296, April 8, 2014).

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletins A300-28-0091, dated March 5, 2013; and A300-28-6109, Revision 01, dated December 20, 2013. This service information describes procedures for a one-time inspection for chafing of the overflow sensor harness, and contacting the manufacturer for repair instructions. This service information also describes modification of the sensor harness. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 123 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it takes about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the inspection required by this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this inspection on U.S. operators to be $31,365, or $255 per product.

    We estimate that it takes about 12 work-hours per product to comply with the modification requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $500 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this modification on U.S. operators to be $186,960, or $1,520 per product.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0189; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-03-03 Airbus: Amendment 39-18099. Docket No. FAA-2014-0189; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-181-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective April 6, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(5) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers; except for airplanes modified by supplemental type certificate ST00092BO (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/D41C5AE8E46B4901862574900069E004?OpenDocument&Highlight=st00092bo).

    (1) Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes.

    (2) Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.

    (3) Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.

    (4) Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.

    (5) Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of chafing found on the overflow sensor harness of the surge tank, and subsequent contact between the electrical wiring and fuel tank structure. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing of the harness and subsequent contact between the electrical wiring and fuel tank structure, which could result in electrical arcing and a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) One-Time Inspection and Repair

    Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD: Perform a one-time general visual inspection for chafing of the outer tank sensor harness between ribs 26 and 27, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0091, dated March 5, 2013 (for Model A300 series airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109, Revision 01, dated December 20, 2013 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes);

    (1) If any previous repairs are identified, or if braid and wire insulation is found damaged with the conductor exposed during the inspection required by the introductory text of paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (2) If the braid and wire insulation is found damaged without the conductor exposed during the inspection required by the introductory text of paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0091, dated March 5, 2013 (for Model A300 series airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109, Revision 01, dated December 20, 2013 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes).

    (h) Modification

    (1) For airplanes on which no damage was found during the inspection required by the introductory text of paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, install modified and error-proof angle brackets to stringer 15 between ribs 26 and 27 of the outer tank sensor harness, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0091, dated March 5, 2013 (for Model A300 series airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109, Revision 01, dated December 20, 2013 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes).

    (2) For airplanes on which any damage was found during the inspection required by the introductory text of paragraph (g) of this AD, and the applicable repair required by paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD has been done: Before further flight, install modified and error-proof angle brackets to stringer 15 between ribs 26 and 27 of the outer tank sensor harness, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0091, dated March 5, 2013 (for Model A300 series airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109, Revision 01, dated December 20, 2013 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes).

    (i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109, dated March 5, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-227-2125; fax: 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

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

    (ii) Except as required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: If the service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC (Required for Compliance), those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures and tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0193, dated August 23, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0189-0002.

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

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0091, dated March 5, 2013.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109, Revision 01, dated December 20, 2013.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 2, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-02676 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0264; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-1] RIN 2120-AA66 Revocation of Restricted Area R-2936, West Palm Beach, FL AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action removes restricted area R-2936, West Palm Beach, FL. The using agency informed the FAA they no longer have a requirement for this area; therefore, the airspace is being returned to the National Airspace System (NAS).

    DATES:

    Effective date: 0901 UTC, April 30, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Restricted area R-2936, West Palm Beach, FL, was established to contain test firings of components for the main engines of the Space Shuttle (55 FR 5981) May 3, 1990. During test firings, hydrogen gas was released through an exhaust stack generating significant turbulence and high air temperatures that could be hazardous to aircraft up to 10,000 feet. The restricted area using agency informed the FAA there are no plans for further hazardous testing in the area. Therefore, the FAA is taking this action to remove restricted area R-2936.

    The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 by removing restricted area R-2936, West Palm Beach, FL. The using agency notified the FAA that they no longer require the restricted area for hazardous activities.

    Because this action removes restricted airspace no longer needed, and returns the airspace to the NAS, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.

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

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it returns restricted airspace that is no longer needed for its designated purpose to the NAS in the West Palm Beach, FL area.

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

    Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73, as follows:

    PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 73.29 [Amended]
    2. Section 73.29 is amended as follows: R-2936 West Palm Beach, FL [Removed]
    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 19, 2015. Gary A. Norek, Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04296 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0265; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASW-11] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment of Restricted Areas R-3801A, R-3801B, and R-3801C; Camp Claiborne, LA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; technical amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    This action updates using agency information for restricted areas R-3801A, R-3801B, and R-3801C, Camp Claiborne, LA. This is an administrative change to reflect an organizational transfer of using agency responsibilities within the United States Air Force. It does not affect the boundaries, designated altitudes, time of designation or activities conducted within the restricted areas.

    DATES:

    Effective date: 0901 UTC, April 30, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On January 6, 1994, the FAA amended restricted areas R-3801A, R-3801B, and R-3801C to reflect “U.S. Air Force, 917 Fighter Wing, Barksdale AFB, LA” as the using agency. Due to multiple U.S. Air Force organizational initiatives since 1994, the 917th Fighter Wing changed to the 917th Wing and then to the 917th Fighter Group. As a result of the 917th Fighter Group deactivating in 2013, the using agency responsibilities were transferred within the U.S. Air Force to the 307th Bomb Wing at Barksdale AFB, where they remain today.

    The organizational changes listed above did not alter the location, size, or use of the restricted areas from the current parameters.

    The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 by updating the using agency name for restricted areas R-3801A, R-3801B, and R-3801C, Camp Claiborne, LA. The name change is due to an organizational transfer of restricted area using agency responsibilities within the U.S. Air Force. This is an administrative change that does not affect the boundaries, designated altitudes, or activities conducted within the restricted areas; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

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

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the technical descriptions of restricted areas to ensure that accurate information is available to the flying public for the Camp Claiborne, LA, area.

    Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 311d. This airspace action is an administrative change to the description of restricted areas R-3801A, R-3801B, and R-3801C to update the using agency name. It does not alter the dimensions, altitudes, time of designation, or use of the airspace; therefore, it is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

    Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73, as follows:

    PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 73.38 [Amended]
    2. Section 73.38 is amended as follows: R-3801A Camp Claiborne, LA [Amended]

    By removing the words “Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 917 Fighter Wing, Barksdale AFB, LA,” and inserting in their place “Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 307th Bomb Wing, Barksdale Air Force Base, LA.”

    R-3801B Camp Claiborne, LA [Amended]

    By removing the words “Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 917 Fighter Wing, Barksdale AFB, LA,” and inserting in their place “Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 307th Bomb Wing, Barksdale Air Force Base, LA.”

    R-3801C Camp Claiborne, LA [Amended]

    By removing the words “Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 917 Fighter Wing, Barksdale AFB, LA,” and inserting in their place “Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 307th Bomb Wing, Barksdale Air Force Base, LA.”

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 24, 2015. Gary A. Norek, Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04294 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0875; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-13] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment of Restricted Area Boundary Descriptions; Cape Canaveral, FL AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; technical amendment, correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This action corrects a final rule; technical amendment, published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2014, that made minor adjustments to the boundary descriptions of restricted areas R-2932, R-2933, R-2934 and R-2935 at Cape Canaveral, FL. Due to a submission error, one latitude/longitude point was omitted from the description of restricted area R-2935, Cape Canaveral, FL. This action corrects the boundary description of R-2935 by adding the missing point.

    DATES:

    Effective date 0901 UTC, March 5, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, AJV-11, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On December 15, 2014, the FAA published a final rule; technical amendment in the Federal Register that made minor adjustments to the boundary descriptions of restricted areas R-2932, R-2933, R-2934 and R-2935 at Cape Canaveral, FL (79 FR 74016). Subsequent to publication, it was determined that one latitude/longitude coordinate had been omitted from the boundary description of restricted area R-2935. The omission causes a slight gap between the boundaries of R-2935 and adjacent restricted areas. This correction inserts “lat. 28°25′01″ N., long 80°37′59″ W.,” between the points “lat. 28°25′01″ N., long. 80°41′44″ W.,” and “lat. 28°24′31″ N., long. 80°29′52″ W.”

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

    Correction to Final Rule; Technical Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the boundary description of restricted area R-2935 Cape Canaveral, FL, as published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2014 (79 FR 74016) (FR Doc. 2014-29268) is corrected under the description as follows:

    PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 73.29 [Corrected] R-2935 Cape Canaveral, FL [Corrected]

    On page 74018, first column, remove the current boundaries and add in its place the following:

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 28°47′21″ N., long. 81°04′59″ W.; to lat. 28°58′02″ N., long. 80°46′58″ W.; thence 3 NM from and parallel to the shoreline; to lat. 28°51′16″ N., long. 80°42′29″ W.; to lat. 28°51′16″ N., long. 80°47′14″ W.; to lat. 28°49′11″ N., long. 80°50′44″ W.; to lat. 28°38′01″ N., long. 80°47′01″ W.; to lat. 28°31′21″ N., long. 80°43′49″ W.; to lat. 28°25′01″ N., long. 80°41′44″ W.; to lat. 28°25′01″ N., long. 80°37′59″ W.; to lat. 28°24′31″ N., long. 80°29′52″ W.; thence 3 NM from and parallel to the shoreline; to lat. 28°19′01″ N., long. 80°33′00″ W.; to lat. 28°19′01″ N., long. 80°46′29″ W.; to the point of beginning.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 19, 2015. Gary A. Norek, Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04290 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 125, and 135 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0289] Policy Regarding Datalink Communications Recording Requirements AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Policy update and clarification; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    This policy statement updates and clarifies how the FAA determines when datalink communications must be recorded as a function of the cockpit voice recorder operational regulations. This policy update eliminates unneeded limitations in current policy, and restates the FAA's intent that the requirement function as a performance-based regulation.

    DATES:

    Effective March 2, 2015. Comments must be received by June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-0289 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical questions concerning this action contact Tim Shaver, Flight Standards Service, Aircraft Maintenance Division—Avionics Maintenance Branch, AFS-360, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-1675, Fax: (202) 267-1813, email: [email protected]

    For legal questions concerning this action contact Karen Petronis, Senior Attorney, Regulations Division, AGC-200, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8018, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    In 2008, the FAA promulgated several amendments to the flight recorder regulations of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (73 FR 12542, March 7, 2008; Docket No. FAA-2005-20245). Those regulations amended the requirements for cockpit voice recorders (CVR) and digital flight data recorders (DFDR) and affected certain air carriers, operators, and aircraft manufacturers. In amending the regulations, the FAA increased the duration of certain CVR recordings; increased the data recording rate for certain DFDR parameters; required the physical separation of the DFDR and CVR; required improved reliability of the power supplies to both the CVR and DFDR; and required that datalink communications to or from an aircraft be recorded if datalink communication (DLC) equipment is installed. The changes were based on recommendations issued by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) following its investigations of several accidents and incidents, and included other revisions the FAA determined necessary. These changes to CVR and DFDR systems were intended to improve the quality and quantity of information recorded and retained for accident and incident investigations.

    When the rule was promulgated, the FAA recognized that emergent DLC technology was changing the equipment and means used by pilots to communicate. While the 2008 regulations did not mandate the installation of datalink communication equipment, the FAA recognized the value of the data communications on the aircraft equipped with DLC, and the need for communicated data to be recorded.

    In the preamble to the 2008 final rule, the FAA discussed a range of comments received about datalink communications, including compatibility with international standards, compliance time, recording capacities, and the application of the requirement to existing datalink capabilities. Many of the FAA's responses to those comments indicated that the requirement to record would depend on the dates of certification, whether the certification was at manufacture or was a retrofit, the extent of equipment installation and functionality, the scope of the message set and changes made to it. In retaining the installation of DLC as optional, but making recording mandatory at installation, the FAA expected that the expansion of datalink technology and its increasing value to operators would result in routine recordation of the communications.

    Since 2010, implementation of the Controller Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) recording requirement has become more complex than anticipated. The FAA has been presented with a greater number of discrete aircraft equipment installations than expected when the rule was promulgated. As such, individual decisions on whether the recording rule applied have become difficult to make consistently within the scope of our original guidance. At issue are aircraft that were manufactured before the effective date of the rule (December 6, 2010) that require widely varying levels of additional CPDLC equipment or software to be fully functional.

    Regulatory Basis

    The regulation requires recordation of the data on the CVR, and was added to the CVR sections of various operating rules in 14 CFR. These regulations were linked to the certification regulations for the particular aircraft, which refer to an approved data message set that must be recorded from the communications unit that translates the signal into data usable by the flight crew (in most cases the flight management system). Rather than define a specific message set, the FAA intended that the requirement be performance based to account for the differing needs and equipage of operators and the evolution of data capabilities.

    There are two guidance documents that apply to datalink communications. First, Advisory Circular, AC 20-160—Onboard Recording of Controller Pilot Data Link Communication (CPDLC) in Crash Survivable Memory, identifies CPDLC messages that may be approved for inclusion in an approved message set. We regularly review this document as new DLC systems and capabilities are developed, the need for specific information changes, and coordination with other international regulating entities occurs.

    The second guidance document is an FAA information bulletin, InFO 10016, released August 16, 2010, which was intended to present in more detail the circumstances that make the recordation requirement applicable to a specific aircraft. When applied to individual aircraft, however, the guidance documents raised unanticipated questions regarding when the requirement would apply, including the effect of equipment changes, and whether the timing of certain changes could alter the applicability of the recording requirement.

    For example, while the FAA recognized that there were aircraft with DLC system design approvals established before the effective date of the rule, the question arose whether simple activation of the same system (such as by a software modification) would make recording mandatory. Since the system designs were approved prior to the rule, they would not have included DLC recording as part of the initial certification requirements, either for the system or the message set. The InFO included guidance on upgrading existing aircraft with DLC recording capability, which included a decision process requiring consideration of multiple factors, such as the date of manufacture of the aircraft, whether installation of both a CVR and a flight data recorder were required, the date of installation of any datalink equipment on the aircraft, whether the datalink equipment had an approved message set, whether a supplemental type certificate was required to install or activate the datalink equipment, and whether a software change alone was sufficient to make the data link recording requirement applicable to a particular aircraft.

    Current Operating Environment

    Since the 2008 rules were promulgated, domestic CPDLC has expanded and evolved, and is poised to become a significant means to enhance safety, efficiency and capacity in the domestic national airspace system (NAS). The FAA is now actively promoting the use of this technology, and has invested in the Data Communications Program (Data Comm) to provide more robust DLC services between pilots and air traffic controllers. Data Comm will provide a data link between the ground and flight deck avionics for safety-of-flight air traffic control clearances, instructions, traffic flow management messages, flight crew requests, and reports. Data Comm has also become a core component of NextGen, as Data Comm provides needed enhancements for communication infrastructure. Data Comm is expected to reduce the impact of ground delays that result from airport reconfigurations, weather, and congestion; reduce communication errors; improve controller and pilot efficiency through automated information exchange; enable broader use of NextGen services (e.g., enhanced re-routes, trajectory operations); and increase controller productivity, leading to increased NAS capacity.

    The FAA is developing data communications capability in two phases. Segment 1 Phase 1 (S1P1) will deploy the CPDLC departure clearance capability in the tower domain. Segment 1 Phase 2 (S1P2) will deliver data communications services to the en route domain (such as airborne reroutes, transfer of communications/initial check-in, and direct-to-fix routing). A second segment enhancing these services is also planned. Collectively, these services will contribute to a reduction in flight delays, reduced environmental impacts, and more efficient routes for aircraft resulting in increased operational efficiency, added flexibility, and enhanced safety. In order to realize the benefits of Data Comm in the NAS domestically, additional aircraft beyond those that currently support Data Comm in the Oceanic airspace are needed.

    As part of the equipage initiative to support Data Comm, operators seeking to incorporate DLC equipment through the FAA-sponsored Data Comm program have reported that current interpretations of the rule and the guidance materials have resulted in an inconsistent determination of when DLC recordation is required on individual aircraft. The resulting uncertainty has delayed the installation of DLC equipment, with operators reporting significant costs to modify aircraft to record this data if the aircraft is not already equipped with the necessary wiring and upgraded information management systems. The difficulties and inconsistencies in application of the recordation criteria are reducing industry participation in the Data Comm program. As part of the NexGen Implementation Working Group (NIWG) activities in 2014, industry representatives noted that their declining participation in the Data Comm program was the result of the additional cost of the recording equipment, further delaying the goal of the fleet size needed to make the system effective.

    In 2014, the NIWG recommended that the Performance-based Operations Rulemaking Committee (PARC) develop a recommendation on the recording rule and present it to the FAA. The PARC is an FAA-sponsored rulemaking committee that has both the FAA and aviation community at large among its members, and which makes recommendations to FAA management on the issues it addresses. Since 2005, the PARC has maintained a Communications Working Group (CWG) to address the implementation of aeronautical communications systems. In 2012, the PARC CWG began a review of airborne datalink recording capabilities.

    The interplay of the recording regulation and the implementation of NextGen were confirmed by the findings of the PARC in its report it submitted to the FAA in October 2014. The FAA met with the PARC CWG and the Data Comm program participants and came to the conclusions already discussed—that determining whether datalink recording is required on individual aircraft manufactured before the effective date of the rule is difficult, resulting in confused and inconsistent decision making; and that the Datalink Recording (DLR) equipage policy defined in the current InFO 10016 leaves questions as to whether certain equipment changes and revisions to DLC systems and certification documentation caused the recordation requirement to apply.

    Cost of Modification

    Since datalink recording itself was still optional under the 2008 regulation, and the use of datalink communication was still limited, neither the recording requirement nor the guidance focused on the cost of the installing recording equipment or on the safety benefits of DLC use. The optional installation and varied use on in-service aircraft left the FAA unable to estimate whether, when, or how many existing aircraft would install DLC systems with CPDLC functionality. The FAA anticipated that the economic benefits of DLC to an operator would be the determining factor in a decision whether to install it at all. With the recent input of the NIWG and the PARC, the economic impact of installing a required DLC recording system is becoming better understood. Cost data have been collected from the airline partners that are participating in the Data Comm program and the PARC. The reported cost for installing the recording functions is $135,000 per aircraft. The costs associated with equipping an aircraft manufactured before 2010 with datalink recording were approximated as follows:

    • CVR Hardware—$18,000 • CVR Control Panel—$7,000 • Non-Recurring Engineering (CVR)—$10,000 • New Communications Management Unit (CMU) (recording capable)—$35,000 • New CMU software that enables datalink recording—$10,000 • Non-recurring Engineering (CMU)—$10,000 • Installation Kits (CVR/CMU combined)—$10,000 • Installation Labor—$15,000 • Aircraft out of service costs (wiring run and access required)—$20,000 Datalink Communication Safety Benefits

    While the efficiency benefits of CPDLC had been projected and quantified in several studies that were available at the time of the rulemaking, the safety benefits had not been the subject of similar study. In 2012, the FAA began a preliminary analysis on the potential safety benefits arising from the implementation of two systems, the Future Air Navigation System (FANS 1/A) CPDLC and Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Contract (ADS-C), and presented the results to the North Atlantic Safety Analysis Reduced Separation Implementation Group (NAT SARSIG) in 2012. As the summary of discussions and conclusions of the meeting states, “These preliminary results indicated a significant potential for enhancing safety in the International Civil Aviation Organization North Atlantic Region (ICAO NAT) Region, particularly in the vertical dimension.” (See Appendix L to the Summary of Discussions of the NAT SARSIG Sixteenth Meeting, October 2012, included in the docket for this notice). The NAT SARSIG indicated that projected safety benefits include improved conformance monitoring and intervention capability through early detection and resolution of errors via integrated FANS 1/A CPDLC and ADS-C; a reduction in errors associated with manual pilot data entry of clearances resulting from the ability to load data link clearances directly into the Flight Management System (FMS); and a reduction in the duration of loss of communication between aircraft and air traffic control (ATC) when transferring ATC contact by using a reviewable message.

    The ability to send reviewable messages is expected to significantly reduce several communications errors, such as read-back and hear-back errors, lack of read-back and hear-back, and audio interruptions. These types of communications errors impact ATC operations. As an example, failure to comply with an assigned altitude may result from not hearing the communication, hearing it incorrectly, or ATC not hearing a reply.

    In its report, the PARC recommended first that the FAA clarify its guidance material to indicate that the recordation requirement does not apply to certain cases of datalink retrofit including those aircraft (1) that have an existing certified datalink capability; (2) that can activate a datalink capability that was certified before the effective date of the rule; and (3) that modify installation modifications to certified data link capability that do not change the FANS 1/A or ATN B1 interoperability. The PARC also recommended that the FAA go further and revise the regulations to exclude any aircraft manufactured before the effective date of the rule from the requirement to record datalink communications messages, regardless of the date of installation of the DLC equipment. Finally, the PARC recommended that the FAA work with the European Aviation Safety Agency and ICAO to continue harmonizing data link recording rules, their applicability, and timelines.

    FAA Analysis

    The FAA has reviewed the PARC report and discussed the issue with various aviation organizations. Based on the data and recommendations received, the FAA concluded that a significant need for clarification and revision of current policy exits. The agency and the industry have made significant investment in data communications. These systems are expected to reduce communication errors and improve safety in the NAS as they enhance NAS efficiency and capacity.

    The FAA better understands the cost of installing DLR systems on aircraft that were designed and manufactured before the regulation was promulgated and no provisions for DLC recording were available. Most aircraft produced after the effective date of the rule have the base mechanisms for DLC already installed at manufacture, which significantly decreases the cost and impact of incorporating a recording component. Accordingly, the policy changes announced in this document are applicable to aircraft that were manufactured before December 6, 2010 (or April 6, 2012, if complying with part 91).

    The FAA agrees that the complexity of the current guidance has resulted in inconsistent application of the rule. The recording regulation was not intended to discourage the installation of datalink capability, and its applicability should not depend on the subjective interpretation of factors as minor as the day a previously installed system was turned on or the scope of changes to a previously approved DLC system. In order to maximize the safety and efficiency benefits of DLC use in the NAS, the FAA is simplifying its guidance regarding the applicability of the recording requirement for aircraft that were manufactured before the effective date of the rule.

    The target aircraft for this policy change represent approximately 30% of the current U.S. fleet operating under parts 121 and 135, as reported by the PARC. These 2,116 aircraft were manufactured prior to 2010 and had a certified DLC system that was available before the recordation rule became effective. This number will gradually decrease as these older aircraft are retired and replaced. Since DLC recordation was not required when these aircraft were manufactured, none of the messages associated with those certified systems were identified, making application of the regulation difficult and inconsistent. The FAA forecasts that by 2020, 34% of the U.S. fleet (approximately 2,200) will consist of aircraft manufactured after 2010 that have DLC recording capability.

    Comments Requested

    While this policy update is effective on publication, the FAA seeks comment from interested persons regarding the application of the policy to affected operators. We are particularly interested in comments identifying the make/model/series of aircraft that had a certified DLC design approval prior to the effective date of the rule, and any information regarding the economic impacts of the prior and revised polices, and descriptions of circumstances for which application of the regulation remains unclear following this policy update.

    Updated Policy

    Datalink recording requirements are found in the operating regulations of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), specifically in § 91.609, effective April 6, 2012; and in §§ 121.359, 125.227 and 135.151, effective December 6, 2010. These regulations each require that the subject airplanes or rotorcraft that install datalink communication equipment on or after [the effective date of the rule], must record all datalink messages as required by the certification rule applicable to the aircraft.

    This policy statement clarifies how the FAA defines the phrase “install datalink communication equipment” for purposes of the recordation requirement. Clarification of this policy and FAA guidance material is intended to assist FAA personnel and aircraft operators in determining when datalink recording is required.

    Definition of Datalink Communication Equipment

    The term “datalink communication equipment” as used in these regulations, means all of the components installed on the aircraft that are necessary to complete data communications. The equipment may vary for individual aircraft, but could include the Flight Management Computer; Communications Management Unit (CMU), or equipment with an equivalent function that hosts an approved message set (e.g., CPDLC application), the datalink router (e.g., hosted in the CMU) that routes the messages to the radios, any radios (e.g., VHF, HF Datalink, Satcom) that are used to transmit the messages using an approved message set, and any antennas associated with these radios.

    Applicability

    In applying this regulation, aircraft are divided into two groups: Those manufactured on or after the effective date of the rule, and those manufactured before that date.

    Those airplanes or rotorcraft manufactured on or after the effective date, must record all datalink communications when both of the following conditions are met:

    • The aircraft is required to have both a cockpit voice recorder and a flight data recorder; and

    • The aircraft has datalink equipment installed that uses an approved message set (see FAA Advisory Circular 20-160).

    Those airplanes or rotorcraft manufactured before the effective date of the rule must record all datalink communications when both of the following conditions are met:

    • The aircraft is required to have both a cockpit voice recorder and a flight data recorder; and

    • The MAKE/MODEL/SERIES of the aircraft did not have any certified DLC equipment installation design approval (providing one or more of the messages identified in AC 20-160) prior to the effective date of the rule.

    The FAA InFO 10016 dated August 16, 2010 is cancelled. A revised InFO reflecting the policy changes noted here is under development and will be posted on the FAA Web site when completed.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 23, 2015. John S. Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04158 Filed 2-25-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 15 CFR Part 922 [Docket No. 140903747-4747-01] RIN 0648-BE48 Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Regulations; Correction AGENCY:

    Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).

    ACTION:

    Correcting amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is reinstating missing paragraphs of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) regulations that pertain to the issuance of permits. NOAA inadvertently excluded the paragraphs in the publication of a November 2011 final rule revising OCNMS permitting regulations. The reinstatement of these paragraphs will ensure continued coordination with the treaty Indian tribes whose cultural and treaty resources may be affected by activities of regulated entities. In addition, these provisions provide notice to the regulated community of NOAA's responsibilities to treaty Indian tribes whose cultural and treaty resources may be affected by a permittee's proposed activities.

    DATES:

    Effective March 2, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Helene Scalliet at (301) 713-3125 x281 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On November 1, 2011, NOAA issued final regulations revising permit criteria for Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (76 FR 67348). NOAA inadvertently excluded existing paragraphs (d) through (h) in section 922.153 from the regulatory text as a result of mistaken directions given to the Government Publishing Office, which is responsible for publishing the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Instead of amending only paragraphs (a) through (c) of that section, per the 2011 rulemaking, NOAA instructed GPO to revise section 922.153 in its entirety, thus replacing all existing regulatory text with sections (a) through (c). The missing paragraphs of regulatory text are essential to inform regulated entities of NOAA's responsibilities toward treaty Indian tribes and their cultural and tribal resources. NOAA's responsibility to federally recognized Indian tribes, their cultural and treaty resources may affect both the processing and determinations of applications to conduct activities in the Sanctuary.

    The missing paragraphs (d) through (h) can be found in a previous final rule in 60 FR 66875, published on December 27, 1995 and at 15 CFR 922.153 (2011).

    Evidence that this deletion of paragraphs (d) through (h) was an inadvertent procedural error can be drawn from NOAA's absence of discussion on these changes in the preambles of both the proposed and final rules, as well as the absence of analysis in the associated environmental assessment prepared according to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The plain language of the prior rule should have guided the public's knowledge and expectations of regulated entities proposing activities in the Sanctuary. Without the missing paragraphs, those expectations would be conflicted. Accordingly, NOAA is publishing this technical correction as a correcting amendment without notice and comment. This rule reinstates paragraphs (d) through (h) of section 922.153.

    Classification A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Impact

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of the meaning of Executive Order 12866.

    B. Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Assistant Administrator of the National Ocean Service (NOS) finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act because this rule merely reinstates language from a rule previously submitted to notice and comment review and inadvertently deleted from the Code of Federal Regulations and as such is unnecessary. This rule corrects a procedural error and ensures required and expected implementation of NOAA's statutory responsibilities toward treaty Indian tribes with cultural and treaty resources in or near the Sanctuary; improves communication and collaboration with federally recognized Indian tribes; and fulfills the intent of Executive Order 13175. NOAA has decided to make this document effective upon publication because public comment and delayed effectiveness are unnecessary. The language has already been subject to notice and comment from the public and is merely a restatement of pre-existing regulatory language. For the reasons above, the Assistant Administrator finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared.

    (Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program) W. Russell Callender, Acting Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management.

    Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration amends 15 CFR part 922 as follows:

    PART 922—NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY PROGRAM REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 922 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.

    2. Revise § 922.153 to read as follows:
    § 922.153 Permit procedures and criteria

    (a) A person may conduct an activity prohibited by paragraphs (a)(2) through (8) of § 922.152 if conducted in accordance with the scope, purpose, terms and conditions of a permit issued under this section and § 922.48.

    (b) Applications for such permits should be addressed to the Director, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries; ATTN: Superintendent, Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, 115 East Railroad Avenue, Suite 301, Port Angeles, WA 98362-2925.

    (c) The Director, at his or her discretion, may issue a permit, subject to such terms and conditions as he or she deems appropriate, to conduct an activity prohibited by paragraphs (a)(2) through (8) of § 922.152, if the Director finds that the activity will not substantially injure Sanctuary resources and qualities and will: Further research related to Sanctuary resources and qualities; further the educational, natural or historical resource value of the Sanctuary; further salvage or recovery operations in or near the Sanctuary in connection with a recent air or marine casualty; assist in managing the Sanctuary; further salvage or recovery operations in connections with an abandoned shipwreck in the Sanctuary title to which is held by the State of Washington; or be issued to an American Indian tribe adjacent to the Sanctuary, and/or its designee as certified by the governing body of the tribe, to promote or enhance tribal self-determination, tribal government functions, the exercise of treaty rights, the economic development of the tribe, subsistence, ceremonial and spiritual activities, or the education or training of tribal members. For the purpose of this part, American Indian tribes adjacent to the sanctuary mean the Hoh, Makah, and Quileute Indian Tribes and the Quinault Indian Nation. In deciding whether to issue a permit, the Director may consider such factors as: The professional qualifications and financial ability of the applicant as related to the proposed activity; the duration of the activity and the duration of its effects; the appropriateness of the methods and procedures proposed by the applicant for the conduct of the activity; the extent to which the conduct of the activity may diminish or enhance Sanctuary resources and qualities; the cumulative effects of the activity; the end value of the activity; and the impacts of the activity on adjacent American Indian tribes. Where the issuance or denial of a permit is requested by the governing body of an American Indian tribe, the Director shall consider and protect the interests of the tribe to the fullest extent practicable in keeping with the purposes of the Sanctuary and his or her fiduciary duties to the tribe. The Director may also deny a permit application pursuant to this section, in whole or in part, if it is determined that the permittee or applicant has acted in violation of the terms or conditions of a permit or of these regulations. In addition, the Director may consider such other factors as he or she deems appropriate.

    (d) It shall be a condition of any permit issued that the permit or a copy thereof be displayed on board all vessels or aircraft used in the conduct of the activity.

    (e) The Director may, inter alia, make it a condition of any permit issued that any data or information obtained under the permit be made available to the public.

    (f) The Director may, inter alia, make it a condition of any permit issued that a NOAA official be allowed to observe any activity conducted under the permit and/or that the permit holder submit one or more reports on the status, progress or results of any activity authorized by the permit.

    (g) The Director shall obtain the express written consent of the governing body of an Indian tribe prior to issuing a permit, if the proposed activity involves or affects resources of cultural or historical significance to the tribe.

    (h) Removal, or attempted removal of any Indian cultural resource or artifact may only occur with the express written consent of the governing body of the tribe or tribes to which such resource or artifact pertains, and certification by the Director that such activities occur in a manner that minimizes damage to the biological and archeological resources. Prior to permitting entry onto a significant cultural site designated by a tribal governing body, the Director shall require the express written consent of the governing body of the tribe or tribes to which such cultural site pertains.

    [FR Doc. 2015-04237 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1230 [Docket No. CPSC-2014-0011] Safety Standard for Frame Child Carriers AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, section 104 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), requires the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) to promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. These standards are to be “substantially the same as” applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standards if the Commission determines that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the products. The Commission is issuing a safety standard for frame child carriers in response to the direction under section 104(b) of the CPSIA. In addition, the Commission is amending its regulations regarding third party conformity assessment bodies to include the mandatory standard for frame child carriers in the list of Notices of Requirements (NOR) issued by the Commission.

    DATES:

    The rule will become effective on September 2, 2016. The incorporation by reference of the publication listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 2, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julio Alvarado, Compliance Officer, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: 301-504-7418; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background and Statutory Authority

    The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA, Pub. L. 110-314) was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA, part of the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, requires the Commission to: (1) Examine and assess the effectiveness of voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products, in consultation with representatives of consumer groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and independent child product engineers and experts; and (2) promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant and toddler products. These standards are to be “substantially the same as” applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standards if the Commission determines that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. The term “durable infant or toddler product” is defined in section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA as “a durable product intended for use, or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the age of 5 years.”

    On May 16, 2014, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for frame child carriers. 79 FR 28458. The NPR proposed to incorporate by reference the voluntary standard, ASTM F2549-14, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Frame Child Carriers, with one proposed substitute provision that would provide clear pass/fail criteria for an existing test.

    In this document, the Commission is issuing a mandatory safety standard for frame child carriers. As required by section 104(b)(1)(A), the Commission consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade organizations, laboratories, consumer advocacy groups, consultants, and the public to develop this proposed standard, largely through the ASTM process. The rule incorporates by reference the most recent voluntary standard developed by ASTM International (formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials), ASTM F2549-14a, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Frame Child Carriers. This most recent version of the ASTM voluntary standard includes the clear pass/fail criteria for an existing test that were proposed in the NPR.

    In addition, the final rule amends the list of NORs issued by the Commission in 16 CFR part 1112 to include the standard for frame child carriers. Under section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), the Commission promulgated 16 CFR part 1112 to establish requirements for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (or testing laboratories) to test for conformance with a children's product safety rule. Amending part 1112 adds a NOR for the frame child carrier standard to the list of children's product safety rules.

    II. Product Description

    The scope of ASTM F2549-14a defines a “frame child carrier” as “a product, normally of sewn fabric construction on a tubular metal or other frame, which is designed to carry a child, in an upright position, on the back of the caregiver.” The intended users of frame carriers are children who are able to sit upright unassisted and weigh between 16 pounds and 50 pounds. Frame carriers are intended to be worn on the back and suspended from both shoulders of the caregiver's body in a forward- or rear-facing position. This type of carrier is often used for hiking and closely resembles hiking/mountaineering backpacks not intended to be used for child transport.

    III. Market Description

    Staff identified 16 firms supplying frame child carriers to the U.S. market. Typically, frame child carriers cost from $100 to around $300. Additional firms may supply these products to U.S. consumers.1 Most of these firms specialize in manufacturing and/or distributing one of two distinct types of products: (1) Children's products, including durable nursery products; or (2) outdoor products, such as camping and hiking gear. The majority of the 16 known firms are domestic (including five manufacturers, eight importers, and one firm whose supply source could not be determined). The remaining two firms are foreign (including one manufacturer and one firm that imports products from foreign companies and distributes the products from outside of the United States).2

    1 Since staff prepared the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, one importer has entered the market, another firm was purchased (remaining in the market), and a third has established an official U.S. distributor for their products.

    2 Staff made these determinations using information from Dun & Bradstreet and ReferenceUSAGov, as well as firm Web sites.

    The Commission expects that the frame child carriers of seven of these firms comply with ASTM F2549 because the firms either: (1) Certify their carriers through the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) (three firms); or (2) claim compliance with the voluntary standard (four firms).3 However, some of the suppliers of frame child carriers do not supply any other children's products; and it is possible that these suppliers may be unfamiliar with the voluntary ASTM standards, a circumstance confirmed by one supplier that staff contacted during the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) development. The Commission staff attempted unsuccessfully to obtain information from several firms whose frame child carriers do not claim compliance with the ASTM standard to determine the extent to which their carriers might not comply. Staff's testing indicates that some frame child carriers would not meet all provisions of the ASTM F2549.

    3 JPMA typically allows 6 months for companies with products in their certification program to shift to a new standard for testing and certification once the new standard is published. The version of the standard that firms currently are likely to be testing to is ASTM F2549-14. One revision of the standard has been published since then, but it will become effective for JPMA certification purposes before February 2015. However, many frame child carriers are expected to be compliant with ASTM F2549-14a without modification; and firms compliant with earlier versions of the standard are likely to remain compliant as the standard evolves.

    In 2013, the CPSC conducted a Durable Nursery Product Exposure Survey (DNPES) of U.S. households with children under age 6. Data from the DNPES indicate that an estimated 2.38 million frame child carriers are in U.S. households with children under the age of 6 (with 95% probability that the actual value is between 1.8 million and 2.95 million). Data collected also indicate that about 54 percent of the frame child carriers in U.S. households with children under age 6 are in use (an estimated 1.28 million frame carriers, with 95% probability that the actual value is between about 880,000 and 1.7 million).4

    4 These results are preliminary. While the data has undergone one stage of review and clean-up, this work is ongoing.

    Staff could not estimate annual injuries because the number of National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) cases was insufficient to meet the CPSC Directorate for Epidemiology (EPI) publication criteria. However, given that part of the publication criteria is that the estimate must be 1,200 or greater over the period under consideration, presumably, there would be, on average, fewer than 120 injuries annually over the approximately 10-year period considered by EPI staff. The recent EPI update for the final briefing package is consistent with this assumption.5

    5 Memorandum from Risana T. Chowdhury, Division of Hazard Analysis, Directorate for Epidemiology, dated November 18, 2013, Subject: Frame Child Carriers-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Potential Injuries; January 1, 2003-October 27, 2013; and memorandum from Risana T. Chowdhury, Division of Hazard Analysis, Directorate for Epidemiology, dated September 30, 2014, Subject: Frame Child Carrier-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Potential Injuries Reported Between October 28, 2013 and September 4, 2014.

    Combining the maximum annual emergency department-treated injury estimate with the data collected for the DNPES yields less than about 0.94 emergency department-treated injuries per 10,000 frame child carriers in use in U.S. households with children under age 6 annually ((120 injuries ÷ 1.28 million frame child carriers in use in U.S. households with children under age 6) × 10,000).6

    6 Using 95% confidence interval values for frame child carriers in use yields an annual estimate of 0.71 to 1.36 emergency department-treated injuries per 10,000 frame child carriers in use in U.S. households with children under age 6.

    IV. Incident Data

    The preamble to the NPR summarized the incident data reported to the Commission involving frame child carriers from January 1, 2003 through October 27, 2013. 79 FR 28459-60. In the NPR, CPSC's Directorate for Epidemiology identified a total of 47 incidents, including 33 injuries and no fatalities related to frame child carriers. Since the NPR, the Commission has received two new reports involving frame child carriers from October 28, 2003 through September 28, 2014. One reported a frame child carrier falling off of a chair with a 14-month-old child in the carrier. The child sustained a head injury. The second report was of a frame child carrier whose straps and buckles disintegrated, but no injury was mentioned.

    The hazards reported in the new incidents are consistent with the hazard patterns identified among the incidents presented in the NPR briefing package. Specifically, staff identified stability and structural integrity as the two top product-related hazards in the incident data presented in the NPR package. The hazard for one of the two new incidents is related to stability, and the other is related to the structural integrity of the product.

    V. Overview of ASTM F2549

    ASTM F2549, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Frame Child Carriers, is the voluntary standard that addresses the identified hazard patterns associated with the use of frame child carriers and was first approved and published in December 2006, as ASTM F2549-06. ASTM has revised the voluntary standard six times since then. ASTM F2549-14a is the most recent version, which was approved on July 1, 2014.

    A. Proposed Rule

    In the NPR, the Commission proposed to incorporate ASTM F2549-14, which addressed many of the hazard patterns identified for frame child carriers, with one addition: specifying criteria for the retention system performance test to provide clear pass/fail criteria for the frame child carrier's restraints.

    B. Current ASTM Standard for Frame Child Carriers (ASTM F2549-14a)

    In May 2014, ASTM issued a ballot for ASTM F2549. That ballot contained language identical to the modification language proposed in the NPR regarding the pass/fail criteria associated with the retention system test. The ASTM subcommittee approved the ballot item. Therefore, the current version of the voluntary standard, ASTM F2549-14a, is identical to the requirements proposed in the NPR.

    In this rule, the Commission incorporates by reference ASTM F2549-14a because the Commission's proposed modification in the NPR has been adopted in ASTM F2549-14a. Thus, ASTM F2549-14a specifies criteria for the retention system performance test to provide clear pass/fail criteria for the carrier's restraints.

    VI. Response to Comments

    The Commission received two comments in response to the NPR. A summary of each comment topic and response is provided below.

    A. Economic Factors 1. Definition of Domestic Manufacturer

    Comment: One commenter questioned the number of small domestic manufacturers cited by CPSC staff and believed that the term “domestic manufacturer” should mean that the product is physically manufactured in the United States.

    Response: CPSC staff uses U.S. Census Bureau guidelines to determine whether a firm is domestic and whether a firm is a manufacturer. Under these guidelines, domestic firms are firms filing tax returns in the United States. The U.S. Census uses the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to determine the type of business. Under this system, a manufacturer can be a firm/establishment that processes materials itself or a firm/establishment that contracts with others to process the materials. The U.S. Small Business Administration's guidance on the Regulatory Flexibility Act (SBA Guidance) recommends using NAICS codes in combination with Census data to identify classes of small entities and estimate their number.7

    7 U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy, A Guide for Government Agencies: How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, May 2012: 36.

    2. Impact on Domestic Manufacturers

    Comment: One commenter questioned what is meant by an insignificant impact and asked whether staff's recommendation would be different if the proposed rule was found to have a significant impact on all or most small businesses.

    The commenter also questioned the use of gross income rather than net income or profit, particularly as the higher costs of manufacturing domestically would decrease net income and profit while leaving gross income unaffected. The commenter suggested that this might, in turn, lead to an underestimate of the significance of the proposed rule on firms manufacturing only in the United States.

    Response: The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not define “significant impact.” As stated in the SBA Guidance, the determination of “significance” will “vary depending on the economics of the industry or sector.” The SBA Guidance also notes that the applicable “agency is in the best position to gauge the small entity impacts of its regulations.” Generally, CPSC staff believes that an insignificant impact in the context of the regulatory flexibility analysis means that the impact is expected to be small enough that changes to a firm's current business operations would be limited or largely unaffected.

    Section 104 of the CPSIA requires that the Commission promulgate a standard that is either substantially the same as the voluntary standard or more stringent than such voluntary standard if the Commission determines that the more stringent standard would further reduce the risk of injury associated with a product. CPSC may not propose a less stringent standard based on economic considerations. At the NPR stage, the Commission proposed adopting the voluntary standard with the sole addition of specifying the pass/fail criteria for the existing retention system performance requirement. By doing so, the Commission proposed adopting the least stringent rule allowed by law. Therefore, the Commission's proposed rule would have been the same even if the impact on each and every small business was found to be significant. The same holds true of the Commission's final rule, which is to adopt the current voluntary standard without modification. CPSC's ability to reduce the impact on small businesses is limited in this case to a later effective date, which would allow firms additional time to come into compliance, spreading out the associated costs.

    The Directorate for Economic Analysis staff typically uses the gross revenue measure because these data are generally available. Furthermore, use of gross revenues as an appropriate measure is consistent with the SBA Guidance.8 In the case of small manufacturers and importers of frame child carriers, no information on profits or net income was available; therefore, no analysis based on this information could be undertaken.

    8 Ibid.18.

    3. Baby Products Survey

    Comment: The commenter questioned the Directorate for Economic Analysis's use of the American Baby Group's 2006 Baby Products Tracking Study, “which could be weighted by bias” and “may not have been adjusted for income and proclivities.”

    Response: In the IRFA, staff acknowledged the bias inherent in the study. As noted in the IRFA, the data collected for the Baby Products Tracking Study do not represent an unbiased statistical sample because the data are drawn from American Baby magazine's mailing lists. However, these data were used solely to estimate annual sales of frame child carriers in the United States and the potential injury risk associated with this product. The use of the Baby Products Tracking Study in no way influenced staff's determination of whether the regulation's impact on firms would be significant or not.

    4. Cost/Benefits Disproportion

    Comment: One commenter asked that the CPSC “keep the cost-benefit ratio appropriate,” noting that the lack of serious “or near serious injuries . . . over the past ten years” would mean minimal benefits associated with third party testing “while such testing costs would be extremely expensive for small domestic businesses.” The commenter requested alternatives, specifically self-certification, and noted that she does not consider a firm's exit from the market an acceptable alternative.

    Response: The CPSC did not conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the frame child carrier rule because the rule is being promulgated under the requirements of section 104 of the CPSIA, which does not require a cost-benefit analysis. Staff conducted an IRFA to assess the impact of the rule on small domestic businesses. Benefits are not required to be considered as part of an IRFA.

    As noted above, section 104 of the CPSIA requires the Commission to adopt a standard that is substantially the same as the voluntary standard or more stringent than such voluntary standard if the Commission determines that the more stringent standard would further reduce the risk of injury associated with a product. Thus, CPSC's ability to reduce the impact on small firms is limited to providing a later effective date.

    CPSC's ability to address testing costs in the context of section 104 rulemaking likewise is limited. In particular, applicable legal requirements do not allow CPSC to modify the voluntary standard to reduce the testing costs imposed by a mandatory frame child carrier standard; CPSC is required to adopt either the voluntary standard or a more stringent standard.

    The discussion in the IRFA of one small domestic manufacturer leaving the market was based on information supplied by the firm when contacted. In consideration of that concern and to allow small businesses additional time to prepare for the impact of the rule, the final rule provides an 18-month effective date. To address potential hazards during that 18-month period before the rule takes effect, CPSC could act to remove any unsafe frame child carriers from the market using its authorities under section 15 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA).

    B. Availability of Testing Laboratories

    Comment: One commenter stated that she had a problem finding laboratories that could conduct the proposed testing.

    Response: In a follow-up phone conversation with the commenter, staff provided specific contacts for three laboratories. Although not yet accredited to test frame child carriers, all three laboratories are capable of testing frame child carriers to the final rule because they have experience testing frame child carriers to the ASTM standard referenced in the final rule.

    C. Testing Equipment Issues

    One commenter raised several issues or questions regarding the test equipment specified in the ASTM standard.

    1. CAMI Dummy Availability

    Comment: One commenter was unable to secure the CAMI dummy due to its price and the lead-time needed to order it.

    Response: Unfortunately, CAMI dummies are only available through the one company that makes them; thus, there are no less expensive versions available. However, there is no requirement for firms to perform testing themselves; thus, there is no requirement to purchase a CAMI dummy or any of the test equipment. Third party testing laboratories offer many services, not just certification testing. Testing laboratories can perform product assessments and pre-certification testing as well.

    2. CAMI Dummy Applicability

    Comment: One commenter believed the size of the test dummy required by the standard is not indicative of a typical user of a frame child carrier. In addition, the commenter noted that the test dummy does not take into account items such as seasonal clothing on the child, which could increase the overall size of the occupant.

    Response: The CAMI dummy referenced in the ASTM standard is modeled after the average (50th percentile) 6-month-old child, which is the youngest user normally specified for these carriers. The CAMI dummy is used in the standard to simulate the youngest user because the hazards being addressed (falling through leg openings, etc.) are more likely to occur with the youngest user. The older (larger) users are not as vulnerable to the specific hazards where testing requires using a CAMI dummy. Therefore, the test procedure uses a conservative approach and simulates use by the smallest (youngest) user. Adding a new test, or using an “older” dummy (or one wearing heavy clothes), would not capture any additional hazards and would only make the testing more expensive.

    3. Test Sphere

    Comment: One commenter stated that she could not find the test sphere.

    Response: The test sphere is not an off-the-shelf product. The standard defines the test sphere as a sphere, 16.5 inches (419.1 mm) in diameter, which is fabricated from a smooth, rigid material and weighs 7.0 pounds (3.2 kg). Those are the only design specifications. Staff is aware of test spheres fabricated from wood, metal, or plastic. Any competent machine shop or woodworking facility should be able to make one to the correct weight and size.

    4. Test Sphere vs. CAMI Dummy

    Comment: One commenter believed the use of the test sphere for the leg opening test is not reasonable because the shape is different from a child, and a sphere cannot use a safety harness. The commenter requested that a CAMI dummy be used instead.

    Response: The goal of this performance requirement is to model a worst-case-use scenario associated with a specific hazard; i.e., an occupant slipping both legs and body through one leg opening. If the product passes a conservative, worst-case scenario test, the product would be safe in that particular respect for all users. For the leg-opening test, the test sphere simulates the smallest user's hip dimension. The requirement is intended to address the hazard associated with the smallest users who may be getting both legs/body into one leg hole and sliding out of the frame child carrier. Thus, the worst-case scenario is to take into account the smallest user's hip dimensions. Lastly, and more importantly, using a smooth, rigid, and consistently dimensioned sphere is more likely to provide repeatable results. This means that the same frame carrier would consistently pass (or fail) the test, irrespective of the test laboratory or technician running the test. The CAMI dummy is made from canvas fabric, and with age and use, the flexibility and texture of the dummy changes. Thus, a frame child carrier tested to the leg-opening requirement might fail the requirement if a worn CAMI dummy were used but would pass if a brand new CAMI dummy were used. Thus, staff agrees with ASTM that the test sphere is the right test probe. Leg opening tests are used in various other children's product standards; and the use of test equipment, such as spheres and probes, to conduct these tests is common practice.

    D. Pre-Certification Testing

    Comment: One commenter expected to send products to a certified laboratory only after having pre-tested them, which she claims would not be possible because of the problems associated with obtaining the testing equipment.

    Response: As mentioned in another response to a comment, firms are not required to pre-test their products before having the products tested by a third party laboratory for certification. It is, however, understandable that companies would like to be assured that their products will pass, before sending them out for certification testing. In that case, firms have multiple alternatives. They can purchase the equipment and undertake the testing themselves, or they can contract with a qualified testing laboratory to conduct the pre-testing.

    E. Self-Certification

    Comment: One commenter, a registered small batch manufacturer, asked why CPSC cannot apply the small batch rules for registered small batch manufacturers to the third party testing requirements for section 104 rules. The commenter suggested removing the third party testing requirement from the rule and providing small batch manufacturers with the alternative to self-certify. The commenter noted that CPSC has already allowed for exemptions from the CPSIA's third party testing requirements for small batch manufacturers.

    Response: Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires that all children's products subject to a children's product safety rule, like the rule for frame child carriers, must be third party tested. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2). Section 14(g)(4) of the Consumer Product Safety Act allows exceptions to third party testing for small batch manufacturers. However, that provision does not allow the Commission to provide small batch manufacturers any alternative requirements or exemptions for rules for durable infant and toddler products promulgated under section 104. Id. 2063(g)(4)(C)(ii). The rule for frame child carriers is promulgated under the legal authority in section 104 of the CPSIA. Therefore, the Commission does not have the legal authority to allow for self-certification for small batch manufacturers for the frame child carrier rule.

    F. Training Opportunities

    Comment: One commenter noted that CPSC staff will be conducting training for buyers and sourcing professionals dealing in electrical-electric-appliances, apparel, and toys in China. The commenter was concerned that similar training with respect to the mandatory rule for frame child carriers would give a competitive advantage to importers and foreign manufacturers whose products are made offshore.

    Response: CPSC staff routinely conducts industry training both abroad and in the United States. During fiscal year 2013, for instance, we conducted 12 training events for industry abroad. For the same period, we conducted 14 training events domestically. Moreover, the Office of Compliance participated in public or webcast meetings throughout fiscal year 2013 to discuss newly issued and existing rules and requirements; these materials generally are made available to the general public. Many of these materials are available at www.slideshare.net/USCPSC for download and review. Since Fiscal Year 2012, we have uploaded 120 presentations on a variety of topic areas to SlideShare. The total number of these meetings was 88, the majority of which were domestic. Staff anticipates continuing such training opportunities both abroad and domestically.

    G. Compliance Issues

    Comment: One commenter asked for clarification about what constitutes a different model of a product and what changes to the frame child carrier would constitute enough of a difference to require additional third party testing.

    Response: Guidance regarding material change testing is available on the CPSC Web site, which contains information about applicable definitions and legal requirements. It is a manufacturer's responsibility to determine when a product change constitutes a different model. How this determination is made governs whether different models could require third party testing and certification. A material change to the product's design or manufacturing process, as well as a new source of component parts for the product, could affect the product's ability to comply with the applicable children's product safety rule and could be considered enough of a change to require additional testing.

    The frame child carrier rule is a children's product safety rule subject to third party testing. The manufacturer only has to retest the product if there is a material change. If the material change only affects certain component parts; component part testing can be sufficient for that component part only, so long as the material change will not affect the finished product's ability to comply with the applicable children's product safety rules.

    H. Effective Date

    Comment: One commenter agreed with the proposed 6-month effective date for the standard, while another commenter expressed concerns about whether a domestic test laboratory would be willing to perform testing to the mandatory frame child carrier standard if only three U.S. firms were requesting third party testing. A second commenter suggested that the rule could impose “excessive costs,” damaging to the commenter's firm.

    Response: As previously noted, the sole alternative staff can recommend to help minimize the impact of the mandatory standard is a later effective date. A later effective date would allow manufacturers and test laboratories additional time to prepare for the rule's requirements. A later effective date would reduce the economic impact on small firms in two ways. First, firms would be less likely to experience a lapse in production, which could result if firms are unable to develop compliant frame child carriers and third party test them within the required timeframe. Second, firms could spread costs over a longer time period, thereby reducing their annual costs and the present value of their total costs.

    Staff does not agree with the second commenter's concerns regarding the potential difficulty in securing a U.S. (or foreign) test laboratory accredited to test frame child carriers. Inquiries made of three domestic laboratories who are qualified to test frame child carriers indicated that these test laboratories already have the ASTM standard for frame child carriers in their accreditation scope. All three labs include the ASTM standard in their accreditation and intend to apply for CPSC acceptance for testing to the regulation after a final rule is published. Staff believes that laboratories will be able to complete the necessary procedures to permit testing under the new frame carrier rule within the 18-month period before effectiveness of the rule.

    However, CPSC staff cannot rule out a significant impact on small businesses whose frame child carriers do not comply with the final rule. Therefore, as discussed above, the final rule provides an 18-month effective date to reduce the impact of the mandatory standard, to the extent possible, on small businesses.

    VII. Final Rule A. Final Rule for Part 1230 and Incorporation by Reference

    Section 1230.2 of the final rule provides that frame child carriers must comply with ASTM F2549-14a. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. The OFR recently revised these regulations to require that, for a final rule, agencies must discuss in the preamble of the rule ways that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In addition, the preamble of the rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b).

    In accordance with the OFR's requirements, the discussion in this section summarizes the provisions of ASTM F2549-14a. Interested persons may purchase a copy of ASTM F2549-14a from ASTM, either through ASTM's Web site or by mail at the address provided above and in the rule. One may also inspect a copy of the standard at the CPSC's Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, or at NARA, as discussed above. We note that the Commission and ASTM arranged for commenters to have “read only” access to ASTM F 2549-14a during the NPR's comment period.

    The CPSC is incorporating by reference ASTM F2549-14a because ASTM F2549-14a includes the Commission's proposed modification in the NPR to specify criteria for the retention system performance test to provide clear pass/fail criteria for the carrier's restraints.

    ASTM F2549-14a contains requirements covering:

    • Sharp points • small Parts • lead in paint • flammability requirements • scissoring, shearing, pinching • openings • exposed coil springs • locking and latching (for carriers that fold for storage) • unintentional folding (for carriers with kick stands that can stand freely) • labeling • protective components • structural integrity • leg openings (to help prevent smaller occupants from falling out of the carrier through a single leg opening) • dynamic strength (tests the frame, fasteners, and seams/stitching under dynamic conditions to help prevent breakage or separation) • static load (ensures the carrier can hold three times the maximum recommended weight) • stability (for carriers that can stand freely) • restraints (requires that all carriers have a restraint system and also provides a method for testing the restraints), and • handle integrity (helps prevent the handle from breaking or separating when it is pulled with three times the maximum recommended weight). B. Amendment to 16 CFR Part 1112 To Include NOR for Frame Child Carriers Standard

    The final rule amends part 1112 to add a new section 1112.15(b)(38) that lists 16 CFR part 1230, Safety Standard for Frame Child Carriers as a children's products safety rule for which the Commission has issued an NOR. Section XIII of the preamble provides additional background information regarding certification of frame child carriers and issuance of an NOR.

    VIII. Effective Date

    The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that the effective date of the rule be at least 30 days after publication of the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The safety standard for frame child carriers and the corresponding changes to the part 1112 rule regarding requirements for third party conformity assessment bodies will become effective 18 months after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The rule provides an 18-month effective date to allow firms whose frame child carriers may not comply with the voluntary ASTM standard additional time to come into compliance with the mandatory frame child carrier rule. Of the nine supplying firms contacted, four provided information on the time table required for redevelopment. Eighteen months reflects the maximum length of time these firms indicated might be necessary and will allow the greatest flexibility to small firms that may be significantly affected by the mandatory frame child carrier standard.

    IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act A. Introduction

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires agencies to consider the impact of proposed and final rules on small entities, including small businesses. Section 604 of the RFA requires that agencies prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) when promulgating final rules, unless the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FRFA must describe the impact of the rule on small entities. Specifically, the final regulatory flexibility analysis must contain:

    • A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule;

    • a statement of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments;

    • the response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the comments;

    • a description of and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate is available;

    • a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for the preparation of the report or record; and

    • a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.

    B. Reason for Agency Action

    The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, section 104 of the CPSIA, requires the CPSC to promulgate mandatory standards for durable infant or toddler products that are substantially the same as, or more stringent than, the voluntary standard. Infant carriers are included in the definition of “durable infant or toddler products” subject to section 104 of the CPSIA. CPSC staff worked closely with ASTM stakeholders to develop the requirements and the pass/fail criteria associated with the retention system test procedures that have been incorporated into ASTM F2549-14a, which forms the basis for the mandatory standard.

    C. Other Federal Rules

    The frame child carrier mandatory standard will have implications for two separate, existing federal rules: (1) Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification (16 CFR part 1107); and (2) Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies (16 CFR part 1112).

    The testing and labeling rule (16 CFR part 1107) requires that manufacturers of children's products subject to product safety rules, certify, based on third party testing, that their children's products comply with all applicable safety rules. Because frame child carriers will be subject to a mandatory rule, they will also be subject to the third party testing requirements when the rule becomes effective.

    In addition, section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires the third party testing of children's products to be conducted by CPSC-accepted laboratories. Section 14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires the Commission to publish a notice of requirements (NOR) for the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (i.e., testing laboratories) to test for conformance with each children's product safety rule. These NORs are set forth in 16 CFR part 1112. The final rule is amending part 1112 to include frame child carriers in the list of NORs issued by the Commission.

    D. Impact on Small Businesses

    There are approximately 16 firms currently known to be marketing frame child carriers in the United States, 14 of which are domestic. Under SBA guidelines, a manufacturer of frame child carriers is categorized as small if the entity has 500 or fewer employees, and importers and wholesalers are considered small if they have 100 or fewer employees. We limited our analysis to domestic firms because SBA guidelines and definitions pertain to U.S.-based entities. Based on these guidelines, about 11 of the identified 16 firms are small—four domestic manufacturers, six domestic importers, and one domestic firm with an unknown supply source. Additional unknown small domestic frame child carrier suppliers operating in the U.S. market may exist.

    The impact of the final frame child carrier rule on the domestic manufacturers and importers considered to be small depends upon two factors: (1) Whether, and the degree to which, their frame child carriers comply with the voluntary standard; and (2) the importance of frame child carriers to the firm's overall product line. The effect of these two factors on small manufacturers and small importers is discussed below.

    Small Manufacturers

    Aside from third party testing requirements, discussed below, the final rule is likely to have little or no impact on the three (of four) small domestic manufacturers whose frame child carriers are compliant with the ASTM voluntary standard currently in effect for JPMA testing and certification purposes (ASTM F2549-14). We anticipate these firms will remain compliant with the voluntary standard as the standard changes because the firms follow, and in at least one case, participate actively in the voluntary standard development process. Therefore, compliance with the evolving voluntary standard is part of an established business practice. ASTM F2549-14a, the voluntary standard that the final rule incorporates by reference as the mandatory standard for frame child carriers, will be in effect already for JPMA testing and certification purposes before the mandatory standard goes into effect. These firms are likely to be in compliance based on their history.

    The remaining small manufacturer would experience some economic impacts of unknown size. Based on discussions with a company representative, this firm does not know whether its products comply with the voluntary standard. When contacted by staff prior to the NPR, the firm was unaware of the ASTM standard. Based on subsequent staff conversations, the firm has not yet tested its products to the voluntary standard. Initially, the company's representative indicated that the firm would likely discontinue production of its frame child carriers, regardless of whether they complied with the frame child carriers rule. However, subsequent information from the company suggests that the company likely will stay in the market and modify its frame child carriers, if necessary, to meet the final rule. This firm produces many other products and has indicated that frame child carriers do not represent a large portion of the firm's product line. However, the extent of the changes that may be required to meet the mandatory standard is unknown, as is the exact percentage of revenues that frame child carriers constitute for the firm. Because we have no basis for quantifying the size of the impact, we cannot rule out a significant economic impact for this firm.9

    9 It should be noted that the company representative believes that the impact of the rule on the firm will be significant. However, much of the perceived impact is due to third party testing costs which are considered separately later in this section.

    The 18-month effective date for the final frame child carrier rule should help reduce the impact of the final rule on the known small manufacturer whose frame child carriers may not comply with the rule. This would give the firm additional time to develop new or modified products and spread costs over a longer time frame.

    Under section 14 of the CPSA, once the new frame child carrier requirements become effective, all manufacturers will be subject to the additional costs associated with the third party testing and certification requirements under the testing rule, Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification (16 CFR part 1107). Third party testing will include any physical and mechanical test requirements specified in the final frame child carrier rule; lead testing is already required, and testing for phthalates may also be required. Third party testing costs are in addition to the direct costs of meeting the mandatory frame child carriers standard.

    CPSC staff contacted several frame child carrier suppliers regarding testing costs. Two firms provided estimates that included both physical and mechanical testing to the current ASTM standard, as well as lead and phthalate testing. Firms must test for lead and may be required to test for phthalates regardless of any rule for frame child carriers. Including lead and phthalate testing, one firm estimated testing costs to be $800 to $1,100 per unit tested, and the other firm estimated the costs to be about $1,300 per unit. Estimates provided by durable nursery product suppliers subject to other section 104 rulemakings indicate that around 40 percent to 50 percent of testing costs can be attributed to structural requirements, with the remaining 50 percent to 60 percent resulting from chemical testing (e.g., lead and phthalates). Therefore, staff estimates the ASTM voluntary standard portion of the frame child carrier testing cost estimates to be $320 to $550 per sample tested ($800 × .4 to $1,100 × .5) and $520 to $650 per sample tested ($1,300 × .4 to $1,300 × .5), respectively. A third frame child carrier supplier provided an estimate of $500 to $750 for testing to the ASTM standard separately. These estimates demonstrate that testing costs can vary widely. Elements that can influence costs include where the testing is performed and whether a firm can negotiate rates based on volume for one or more products.

    Staff's review of the frame child carriers market shows that, on average, each small domestic manufacturer supplies three different models of frame child carriers to the U.S. market annually. Therefore, if third party testing were conducted every year, third party testing costs for each manufacturer would be about $960 ($320 × 3) to $2,250 ($750 × 3) annually, if only one sample were tested for each model. Based on an examination of each small domestic manufacturer's revenues from recent Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) or ReferenceUSAGov reports, the impact of third party testing to ASTM F2549-14a will be significantly less than 1 percent of revenue for the three small domestic manufacturers for whom revenue data are available (i.e., testing costs less than 1 percent of gross revenue). Although the testing and labeling rule (16 CFR part 1107) is not explicit regarding the number of samples firms will need to test to meet the “high degree of assurance” criterion, more than 20 units per model would be required before the testing costs of any of the three small manufacturers with available revenue data would exceed 1 percent of gross revenue.10 However, testing costs could be significant for the one small manufacturer for which revenue data were unavailable, given that the entity only recently entered the frame child carriers market and manufactures no other products.

    10 One of these firms commented that their actual testing costs will be higher than estimated in the NPR. However, even if the firm's testing costs were twice those estimated here, testing costs are unlikely to exceed 1 percent of the firm's publically reported gross revenue.

    Small Importers

    As noted above, six small firms import frame child carriers, with two of them currently importing compliant carriers. Absent a mandatory regulation, these two small importers of frame child carriers would likely remain compliant with new versions of the voluntary standard. Given that the two small importers have developed a pattern of compliance with the ASTM voluntary standard as the voluntary standard evolves, and that the final rule is a soon-to-be-effective voluntary standard for JPMA testing, ASTM F2549-14a, the two small importers of compliant products would likely experience little or no direct costs if the final rule is implemented.

    The extent of the economic impact on the four small importers with frame child carriers that do not comply with the voluntary standard will depend upon the product changes required to comply and how their supplying firms respond. Because no small importers with noncompliant frame child carriers responded to requests for information, staff cannot estimate the precise economic impact on these firms.

    However, in general, if their supplying firm comes into compliance, the importer could elect to continue importing the frame child carriers. Any increase in production costs experienced by their suppliers from changes made to meet the mandatory standard may be passed on to the importers. If an importer decides that it is unwilling or unable to accept the increased costs, or if the importer's supplier decides not to comply with the mandatory standard, there are three alternatives available. First, importers could find another supplier of frame child carriers. This could result in increased costs, as well, depending, for example, on whether the alternative supplier must modify their carriers to comply with the mandatory standard. Second, firms could import a different product in place of their frame child carriers. This alternative would help mitigate the economic impact of the mandatory standard on these firms. Finally, importers could stop importing frame child carriers and make no other changes to their product line.

    As with manufacturers, all importers will be subject to third party testing and certification requirements, and consequently, will be subject to costs similar to those for manufacturers, if their supplying foreign firm(s) does not perform third party testing. These costs appear unlikely to exceed 1 percent of gross revenue for the two small domestic importers for which revenue information is available, unless more than 10 or 30 units per model were required to be tested to provide a “high degree of assurance,” respectively. The impact on the other four small importers could not be determined or quantified, and thus, we cannot rule out a significant economic impact.

    E. Alternatives

    Section 104 of the CPSIA requires that the Commission promulgate a standard that is either substantially the same as the voluntary standard or more stringent. Therefore, the final frame child carrier rule (adoption of the voluntary standard, ASTM F2549-14a, with no modifications) is the minimum required by law. Consequently, the sole recommendation that staff can make to minimize (but not eliminate) the rule's economic impact is a later effective date. As discussed above, a later effective date would reduce the economic impact on small frame child carrier firms in two ways.

    Because the economic impact of the frame child carriers rule on small firms could not be determined or quantified, staff cannot rule out a significant impact. Therefore, the final rule has an 18-month effective date, which was the maximum estimated period of time that frame child carrier firms familiar with the ASTM standard advised staff the firms would need for new product development. The minimum period of time estimated was 6 months, but only one of the four firms that responded to this question supported that time estimate. Of the nine supplying firms that staff contacted, four provided information on the time table required for redevelopment. Eighteen months reflects the maximum length of time these firms indicated might be necessary and will allow the greatest flexibility to small firms that may be significantly affected by the mandatory frame child carriers standard.

    X. Environmental Considerations

    The Commission's regulations address whether we are required to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. These regulations provide a categorical exclusion for certain CPSC actions that normally have “little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” Among those actions are rules or safety standards for consumer products. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The rule falls within the categorical exclusion.

    XI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule contains information collection requirements that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 28466 through 28467) discussed the information collection burden of the proposed rule and specifically requested comments on the accuracy of our estimates. Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F2549-14a contain requirements for marking, labeling, and instructional literature. These requirements fall within the definition of “collection of information,” as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3).

    OMB has assigned control number 3041-0166 to this information collection. The Commission did not receive any comments regarding the information collection burden of this proposal. However, the final rule makes modifications regarding the information collection burden because the number of estimated suppliers subject to the information collection burden is now estimated at 16 firms, rather than the 15 firms initially estimated in the proposed rule.

    Accordingly, the estimated burden of this collection of information is modified as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 16 CFR section Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of responses Total annual responses Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    1230.2(a) 16 3 48 1 48
    XII. Preemption

    Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that if a consumer product safety standard is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA refers to the rules to be issued under that section as “consumer product safety rules,” thus, implying that the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply. Therefore, a rule issued under section 104 of the CPSIA will invoke the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA when the rule becomes effective.

    XIII. Certification and Notice of Requirements (NOR)

    Section 14(a) of the CPSA imposes the requirement that products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other Act enforced by the Commission, must be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires that certification of children's products subject to a children's product safety rule be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body. Section 14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires the Commission to publish a NOR for the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (or laboratories) to assess conformity with a children's product safety rule to which a children's product is subject. The “Safety Standard for Frame Child Carriers,” to be codified at 16 CFR part 1230, is a children's product safety rule that requires the issuance of an NOR.

    The Commission published a final rule, Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, 78 FR 15836 (March 12, 2013), which is codified at 16 CFR part 1112 (referred to here as part 1112). This rule became effective on June 10, 2013. Part 1112 establishes requirements for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (or laboratories) to test for conformance with a children's product safety rule in accordance with section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA. Part 1112 also codifies a list of all of the NORs that the CPSC had published at the time part 1112 was issued. All NORs issued after the Commission published part 1112, such as the standard for frame child carriers, require the Commission to amend part 1112. Accordingly, the Commission is now amending part 1112 to include the standard for frame child carriers in the list of other children's product safety rules for which the CPSC has issued NORs.

    Laboratories applying for acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body to test to the new standard for frame child carriers would be required to meet the third party conformity assessment body accreditation requirements in 16 CFR part 1112, Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies. When a laboratory meets the requirements as a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body, the laboratory can apply to the CPSC to have 16 CFR part 1230, Safety Standard for Frame Child Carriers, included in its scope of accreditation of CPSC safety rules listed for the laboratory on the CPSC Web site at: www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.

    CPSC staff conducted a FRFA as part of the process of promulgating the part 1112 rule (78 FR 15836, 15855-58), as required by the RFA. Briefly, the FRFA concluded that the accreditation requirements would not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small laboratories because no requirements were imposed on laboratories that did not intend to provide third party testing services. The only laboratories that were expected to provide such services were those that anticipated receiving sufficient revenue from the mandated testing to justify accepting the requirements as a business decision.

    Based on similar reasoning, amending 16 CFR part 1112 to include the NOR for the frame child carrier standard will not have a significant adverse impact on small laboratories. Based upon the relatively small number of laboratories in the United States that have applied for CPSC acceptance of the accreditation to test for conformance to other juvenile product standards, we expect that only a few laboratories will seek CPSC acceptance of their accreditation to test for conformance with the frame child carrier standard. Most of these laboratories will have already been accredited to test for conformance to other juvenile product standards, and the only costs to them would be the cost of adding the frame child carrier standard to their scope of accreditation. Costs should be negligible, as these laboratories are already familiar with the requirements for CPSC accreditation under 16 CFR part 1112 and have experience with this process for other durable nursery products under section 104 of the CPSIA. As a consequence, the Commission could certify that the NOR for the frame child carriers standard will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    List of Subjects 16 CFR Part 1112

    Administrative practice and procedure, Audit, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Third party conformity assessment body.

    16 CFR Part 1230

    Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants and children, Labeling, Law enforcement, and Toys.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 1112—REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO THIRD PARTY CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT BODIES 1. The authority citation for part 1112 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2063; Pub. L. 110-314, section 3, 122 Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008).

    2. Amend § 1112.15 by adding paragraph (b)(38) to read as follows:
    § 1112.15 When can a third party conformity assessment body apply for CPSC acceptance for a particular CPSC rule and/or test method?

    (b) * * *

    (38) 16 CFR part 1230, Safety Standard for Frame Child Carriers.

    3. Add part 1230 to read as follows: PART 1230—SAFETY STANDARD FOR FRAME CHILD CARRIERS Sec. 1230.1 Scope. 1230.2 Requirements for frame child carriers. Authority:

    The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110-314, § 104, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Pub. L. 112-28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).

    § 1230.1 Scope.

    This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for frame child carriers.

    § 1230.2 Requirements for frame child carriers.

    Each frame child carrier must comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM F2549-14a, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Frame Child Carriers, approved on July 1, 2014. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from ASTM International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428; http://www.astm.org. You may inspect a copy at the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federalregulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Alberta E. Mills, Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-03717 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2014-1076] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Tower Drawbridge across the Sacramento River, mile 59.0 at Sacramento, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the community to participate in footrace events. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 7:45 a.m. on March 14, 2015, to 1 p.m. on March 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2014-1076], is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower Drawbridge, mile 59.0, over Sacramento River, at Sacramento, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens on signal from May 1 through October 31 from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. and from November 1 through April 30 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. At all other times the draw shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given, as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.

    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position 7:45 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. on March 14, 2015, and from 7:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. on March 15, 2015, to allow the community to participate in the Shamrock 5K footrace and the Shamrock Half Marathon, respectively. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

    Dated: February 12, 2015. D.H. Sulouff, District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04267 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0112] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Cape Fear Memorial Bridge across the Cape Fear River, mile 26.8, in Wilmington, NC. This temporary deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed to navigation position for up to five days to facilitate biennial maintenance and inspections.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on March 16, 2015 to 5 p.m. March 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation [USCG-2015-0112] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Terrance Knowles, Environmental Protection Specialist, Coast Guard; telephone 757-398-6587, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, at 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), who owns and operates this vertical lift-type drawbridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulation to facilitate biennial maintenance and inspections.

    Under the regular operating schedule, the bridge opens on signal, except for two other time periods in July and November as described in 33 CFR 117.822. The Cape Fear Memorial Bridge has 65 feet of vertical clearance in the closed position at mean high water.

    Under this temporary deviation the repairs would restrict the operation of the draw. It would allow the bridge to remain closed from 7 a.m. March 16, 2015, to 5 p.m. March 20, 2015 to facilitate biennial maintenance and inspections.

    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation. Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in closed positions. Mariners are advised to proceed with caution.

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

    Dated: February 20, 2015. James L. Rousseau, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04301 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2014-1059] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Moon Island—Long Island Bridge Demolition; Boston Inner Harbor, Quincy Bay; Quincy, MA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing two temporary safety zones within the Sector Boston, Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone on the navigable waters of the Boston Inner Harbor, Quincy Bay for the demolition of the Moon Island—Long Island Bridge, between Moon Island and Long Island, Boston, MA. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters prior to and during demolition and removal of the bridge spans. Entering into, transiting through, remaining in, anchoring, or mooring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Boston.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective without actual notice from 12:01 a.m. on March 2, 2015 until 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from the date the rule was signed, February 13, 2015, until March 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2014-1059 and are available online by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2014-1059 in the “Keyword” box, and then clicking “Search.” They are also available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this notice, contact Mr. Mark Cutter, Coast Guard Sector Boston Waterways Management Division, telephone 617-223-4000, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing material related to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security COTP Captain of the Port FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NAD 83 North American Datum of 1983 A. Regulatory Information and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Sufficient information regarding the severe deteriorating condition of this bridge was only received by the City of Boston in October 2014 after an inspection was conducted in accordance with the new Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) guidelines. That inspection deemed the bridge unsafe for a live load rating for vehicular traffic, dropping the bridge below the minimum standards. Further, in January 2015, a 60 foot by 12 inch water main broke off the bridge above the navigational channel and fell into the channel. Although the pipe was later removed, the condition of the bridge remains a hazard.

    The demolition of the bridge will start immediately and will take approximate three to five months. Accordingly, there is insufficient time to publish an NPRM and solicit comments from the public before the demolition takes place. Thus, waiting for a comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to fulfill its mission to keep the ports and waterways safe.

    It is crucial to the operation of the waterway that this $21 million-demolition project remains on schedule and is completed before the recreational boating season traffic starts. The commuter ferry service that transits between Weymouth-Hingham and Boston has adapted to another route, adding approximately 10 minutes of time to their scheduled runs. The contractor is expected to remove the 225 foot navigational span first, so that commuter ferries can resume transiting their normal route. The actual removal of the sixteen spans is complex and involves a combination of a controlled detonation and conventional demolition. If the bridge demolition project is delayed up it would have serious ramifications to the waterway stakeholders, especially during the summer boating season when it is heavily used by recreational boaters. Due to the dangers posed by the condition of the bridge and the controlled and conventional demolition of such a large structure over a waterway, the different safety zones are necessary to provide for the safety of any vessels transiting the area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect immediately and during the demolition phases.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the temporary rule is 33 U.S.C., 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define regulatory safety zones.

    The temporary safety zones are being established to prohibit vessels from transiting the navigational channel until the span is permanently removed and from transiting in the vicinity of the existing Long Island Bridge during the bridge's demolition and removal.

    C. Discussion of the Temporary Final Rule

    For the reasons discussed above, the COTP is establishing temporary safety zones in the vicinity of the Moon Island Long Island Bridge to ensure the safety of vessels and other property from the hazards associated with the current condition of the bridge and the bridge demolition. The COTP Boston has determined that the actual condition of the bridge and the demolition of such a large structure over the waterway pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Hazards include the falling of parts from the deteriorated bridge to include large pieces of heavy metal, possible flying fragments from the controlled detonation and the obstructions to the waterway that may contribute to marine casualties, such as crane barges, work vessels, and construction equipment, and large pieces of debris falling into the water that may cause death or serious bodily harm. Establishing a safety zone around the location of the navigational channel until it is permanently removed and during the controlled detonation and the conventional demolition operations will help ensure the safety of vessels and other property and help minimize the associated risks.

    The Coast Guard has been coordinating with contractors and local stakeholders regarding the scope of the overall project. The stakeholders that may be affected by this rulemaking have been notified of the risks of transiting this navigational channel and have since modified their ferry routes. They also know the potential impacts to the waterway from this project.

    Vessels may enter or transit through the safety zones during the effective period if authorized by the COTP Boston or the designated representative.

    The COTP will cause notice of enforcement or suspension of enforcement of the safety zones to be made by all appropriate means to affect the widest distribution among the affected segments of the public. Such means of notification will include, but is not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.

    D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.

    The Coast Guard determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: The safety zone for the navigational channel will be of limited duration, expecting to completed by the end February 2015, and the commuter ferries have already rerouted out of safety concerns with the previous falling debris from the bridge and have requested that the navigational bridge span be removed at the earliest stages of the project. This time of the season there is no recreational boating traffic.

    Persons and/or vessels may enter the safety zone if they obtain permission from the Coast Guard COTP, Boston.

    Notifications will be made to the local maritime community through the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners well in advance of the demolition.

    2. 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.

    For all of the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning And Review section, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    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.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. 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 Mr. Mark Cutter at the telephone number or email address indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

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

    4. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

    6. 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.

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

    12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

    13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    14. Environment

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

    33 U.S.C., 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.2

    2. Add § 165.T01-1059 to read as follows:
    § 165.T01-1059 Moon Island—Long Island Bridge Demolition, Boston Inner Harbor—Quincy Bay, Massachusetts.

    (a) General. A temporary safety zone is established for the bridge demolition as follows:

    (1) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters, from surface to bottom, within two hundred (200) yards of the Moon Island—Long Island Bridge, Boston Inner Harbor—Quincy Bay, MA, and enclosed by a line connecting the following points (NAD 83):

    Latitude Longitude 42°18′44″ N 70°58′40″ W; thence to 42°18′33″ N 70°58′31″ W; thence to 42°18′18″ N 70°59′10″ W; thence to 42°18′29″ N 70°59′20″ W; thence to point of origin.

    (2) Effective and Enforcement Period. This rule will be effective and enforced from 12:01 a.m. on February 13, 2015 to 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2015.

    (b) General. A temporary safety zone is established for the controlled detonation demolition phase as follows:

    (1) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters, from surface to bottom, within approximately one thousand (1000) yards of the Moon Island—Long Island Bridge, Boston Inner Harbor—Quincy Bay, Massachusetts, and enclosed by a line connecting the following points (NAD 83):

    Latitude Longitude 42°18′38″ N 70°58′36″ W; thence to 42°18′30″ N 70°57′37″ W; thence to 42°17′44″ N 70°59′20″ W; thence to 42°18′23″ N 70°59′14″ W; thence to 42°18′41″ N 70°59′54″ W; thence to 42°19′11″ N 70°58′43″ W; thence to point of origin.

    (2) Effective and Enforcement Period. This rule will be effective from 12:01 a.m. on February 13, 2015 to 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2015, however it will be enforced on the actual date(s) of the controlled detonation, to be determined at a later date. Coast Guard Sector Boston will give actual notice to mariners via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners

    (c) Regulations. While this safety zone is being enforced, the following regulations, along with those contained in 33 CFR 165.23, apply:

    (1) No person or vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP), Sector Boston the COTP's representatives. However, any vessel that is granted permission by the COTP or the COTP's representatives must proceed through the area with caution and operate at a speed no faster than that speed necessary to maintain a safe course, unless otherwise required by the Navigation Rules.

    (2) Any person or vessel permitted to enter the security zone shall comply with the directions and orders of the COTP or the COTP's representatives. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing lights, or other means, the operator of a vessel within the zone shall proceed as directed. Any person or vessel within the security zone shall exit the zone when directed by the COTP or the COTP's representatives.

    (3) To obtain permissions required by this regulation, individuals may reach the COTP or a COTP representative via VHF channel 16 or 617-223-5757 (Sector Boston Command Center) to obtain permission.

    (4) Penalties. Those who violate this section are subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 1226.

    (d) Notification. Coast Guard Sector Boston will give actual notice through the Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners and to mariners for the purpose of enforcement of this temporary safety zone. Also, Sector Boston will notify the public to the greatest extent possible of any period in which the Coast Guard will suspend enforcement of this safety zone.

    (e) COTP Representative. The COTP's representative may be any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer or any Federal, state, or local law enforcement officer who has been designated by the COTP to act on the COTP's behalf. The COTP's representative may be on a Coast Guard vessel, a Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel, a state or local law enforcement vessel, or a location on shore.

    Dated: February 13, 2015. J.C. O'Connor III, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Boston.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04282 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0040] RIN 1625-AA87 Safety Zone; Cooper River Bridge Run, Cooper River, and Town Creek Reaches, Charleston, SC AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will establish a safety zone on the waters of Cooper River, and Town Creek Reaches in Charleston, South Carolina during the Cooper River Bridge Run on March 28, 2015 from 7:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. The Cooper River Bridge Run is a 10K run across the Arthur Ravenal Bridge. The safety zone is necessary for the safety of the runners and the general public during this event. Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on March 28, 2015 and will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2015-0040. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Chief Warrant Officer Christopher Ruleman, Sector Charleston Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-3184, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive necessary information about the event until January 23, 2015. As a result, the Coast Guard did not have sufficient time to publish an NPRM and to receive public comments prior to the event. Any delay in the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the race participants, spectators and the general public. For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds under 5 U.S.C. 552 for good cause that the rule should take effect in less than 30 days from publication in the Federal Register.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    (a) The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated safety zones and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.

    (b) The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safety of the runners, and the general public during the Cooper River Bridge Run.

    C. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone will only be enforced for a total of three hours; (2) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; and (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

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

    (1) This rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit in a portion of the Cooper River, and Town Creek Reaches in Charleston, South Carolina from 7:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. on March 28, 2015.

    (2) For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

    6. 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.

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

    12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

    13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone on waters of the Cooper River, and Town Creek Reaches, South Carolina during the Cooper River Bridge Run on Saturday, March 28, 2015. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph (34)(g) 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 rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add a temporary § 165.T07-0040 to read as follows:
    § 165.T07-0040, Safety Zone; Cooper River Bridge Run, Charleston, SC.

    (a) Regulated Area. The rule establishes a safety zone on certain waters of the Cooper River, and Town Creek Reaches, South Carolina. The safety zone will consist of a regulated area which will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. on March 28, 2015. The safety zone would create a regulated area that will encompass a portion of the waterway. All waters of the Cooper River, and Town Creek Reaches encompassed within the following points: 32°48′32″ N./079°56′08″ W., 32°48′20″ N./079°54′20″ W., 32°47′20″ N./079°54′29″ W., 32°47′20″ N./079°55′28″ W. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.

    (b) Definition. The term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated area.

    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at 843-740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    (d) Enforcement Date. This rule will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. on March 28, 2015.

    Dated: February 17, 2015. B.D. Falk, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain of the Port Charleston.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04286 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2014-0152] RIN 1625-AA00, 1625-AA87 Safety and Security Zones, Jacksonville Captain of the Port Zone AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has modified several aspects of the safety and security zones within the Sector Jacksonville Captain of the Port Zone. This action was necessary to consolidate, clarify, and otherwise modify safety and security zone regulations to eliminate unnecessary regulations and better meet the safety and security needs of the Ports of Jacksonville, Fernandina, and Canaveral. This action modifies existing safety and security zones; establishes safety zones governing port regulation in the event of natural and other disasters; and removes unnecessary or superfluous safety and security zones.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective April 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2014-0152. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Allan Storm, Sector Jacksonville Office of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (904) 564-7563, email [email protected]. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking COTP Captain of the Port GRT Gross Register Ton A. Regulatory History and Information

    On June 17, 2014, we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety and Security Zones: Jacksonville Captain of the Port Zone in the Federal Register (79 FR 34674).

    In 1994, the USCG published a safety zone around firework barges between the Hart and Acosta Bridges within the Port of Jacksonville. As of 2008, there are 22 special local regulations listed under 33 CFR 100.701 which establish a 500 yard regulated area around various barges for firework display events. This regulation revises the current regulations to add safety zone regulations during natural and other disasters. It also implements safety zones for all fire work displays in the Jacksonville Captain of the Port Zone.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    The purpose of these regulations is to ensure the safety of life on navigable waters of the United States through the addition of regulations applicable during disasters and firework displays within the Jacksonville Captain of the Port Zone.

    C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    Public meetings were held on June 23, 2014 in Jacksonville and June 25, 2014 in Port Canaveral. No comments were received during the meetings or the NPRM comment period.

    D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This regulation is not a significant regulatory action because most of the regulations already exist in some form such as special local regulations for firework displays. The regulations that are being added are not expected to have a significant regulatory action due to the infrequency of use for the safety zones around firework barges. The removal of the safety and security zone for Blount Island would have no effect as the Restricted Area set in place by the Army Corps of Engineers will remain in effect.

    2. 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 received zero comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

    6. 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.

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

    12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

    13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves disestablishing of a safety and security zone, addition of port regulations that would be otherwise published as a Temporary Final Rule, and addition of safety zones to include all firework barge displays within the Jacksonville Captain of the Port Zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Revise § 165.720 to read as follows:
    § 165.720 Safety Zone; Natural and Other Disasters in Ports of Jacksonville, Fernandina, and Canaveral, Florida.

    (a) Regulated Areas. The following areas are established as safety zones during the specified conditions:

    (1) Fernandina, FL. All waters within the Cumberland Sound and Amelia River encompassed within the following locations: starting at the demarcation line drawn across the seaward extremity of the St. Marys River Entrance Jetties; thence following the shoreline north to Stafford Island; thence north to Point 1 in position 30°50'00″ N., 81°29′10″ W.; thence west to Point 2 in position 30°50′00″ N., 81°30′47″ W.; thence southwest to Kings Bay in position 30°48′42″ N., 81°31′27″ W.; thence south following the shoreline south to point 3 in position 30°40′30″ N., 81°28′38″ W.; thence southwest to R “18” at Point 4 30°39′57″ N., 81°29′04″ W.; thence southeast to Point 5 30°39′48″ N., 81°28′57″ W.; thence following the shoreline northeast back to origin.

    (2) Jacksonville, FL. All waters within the Port of Jacksonville, FL encompassed within the following locations: starting at the demarcation line drawn across the seaward extremity of the St. Johns River Entrance Jetties, thence following the northern riverbank west to the Sister's Creek Bridge, thence following the riverbank west to the Interstate 95 Trout River Bridge, thence following the riverbank south to the Henry H. Buckman Bridge, thence following the eastern riverbank back to origin.

    (3) Canaveral, FL. All waters within the Canaveral Barge Canal in Port Canaveral, FL encompassed within the following locations: starting at the demarcation line drawn across the seaward extremity of the Port Canaveral Entrance Channel Jetties, thence following the northern shoreline west to the SR401 Bridge, thence following the southern shoreline back to origin.

    (4) All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.

    (b) Definition. (1) The term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Jacksonville in the enforcement of the regulated area.

    (2) Hurricane Port Condition YANKEE. Set when weather advisories indicate that sustained Gale Force winds from a tropical or hurricane force storm are predicted to make landfall at the port within 24 hours.

    (3) Hurricane Port Condition ZULU. Set when weather advisories indicate that sustained Gale Force winds from a Tropical or hurricane force storm are predicted to make landfall at the port within 12 hours.

    (c) Regulations. (1) Hurricane Port Condition YANKEE. All commercial, oceangoing vessels and barges over 500 GRT as measured under Title 46 United States Code Section 14502 or an alternate tonnage established as 6,000 gross tonnage as measured under 46 U.S.C. 14302 (GT ITC) are prohibited from entering in any of the regulated areas designated as being in Port Condition YANKEE within the COTP Zone Jacksonville. Oceangoing commercial vessel traffic outbound will be authorized to transit through the regulated areas until Port Condition ZULU. Additionally, in the Port of Canaveral, no vessel, regardless of size or service, will be allowed to transit through the Port Canaveral Barge Canal upon the setting of Port Condition YANKEE.

    (2) Hurricane Port Condition ZULU. All commercial, oceangoing vessels and barges over 500 GRT as measured under Title 46 United States Code Section 14502 or an alternate tonnage established as 6,000 gross tonnage as measured under 46 U.S.C. 14302 (GT ITC) are prohibited from transiting or remaining in any of the regulated areas designated as being in Port Condition ZULU within COTP Zone Jacksonville. All ship-to-shore cargo operations must cease 6 hours prior to setting Port Condition Zulu.

    (3) Emergency Regulation for Other Disasters. Any natural or other disasters that are to affect the Jacksonville COTP Zone will result in the prohibition of commercial vessel traffic over 500 GRT as measured under Title 46 United States Code Section 14502 or an alternate tonnage established as 6,000 gross tonnage as measured under 46 U.S.C. 14302 (GT ITC) transiting or remaining in any of the regulated areas predicted to be effected as designated by the COTP Jacksonville.

    (4) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain in the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Jacksonville via telephone at (904) 564-7513, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain in the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative.

    (5) Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville will attempt to notify the maritime community of periods during which these safety zones will be in effect via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or by on-scene designated representatives.

    3. Add § 165.723 to read as follows:
    § 165.723 Safety Zone; Firework Displays in Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, Florida.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following area is established as a safety zone during the specified conditions: All waters within the Jacksonville COTP Zone within a 500 yard radius of a firework barge or barges during the storage, preparation, and launching of fireworks.

    (1) The Coast Guard realizes that some large scale events, such as those with many participants or spectators, or those that could severely restrict navigation or pose a significant hazard, may still require separate special local regulations or safety zones that address the specific peculiarities of the event. In those situations, the Coast Guard will create special local regulations or safety zones specifically for the event, and those regulations will supersede the regulations in this rule.

    (2) All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.

    (b) Definition. The term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Jacksonville in the enforcement of the regulated area.

    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative.

    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain in the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Jacksonville via telephone at (904) 564-7513, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain in the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative.

    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or by on-scene designated representatives.

    (4) This regulation does not apply to authorized law enforcement agencies operating within the regulated area.

    Dated: February 19, 2015. T.G. Allan, Jr., Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Jacksonville.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04280 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0698; FRL-9923-55-Region-4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Mississippi; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve in part and disapprove in part, the May 29, 2012, and July 26, 2012, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions, provided by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for inclusion into the Mississippi SIP. This final rulemaking pertains to the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an “infrastructure” SIP. MDEQ certified that the Mississippi SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Mississippi (hereafter referred to as an “infrastructure SIP submission”). With the exception of provisions pertaining to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting, interstate transport, visibility protection requirements and the state board majority requirements respecting significant portion of income, EPA is taking final action to approve Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submissions, provided to EPA on May 29, 2012, and July 26, 2012. EPA is taking final action to disapprove Mississippi's May 29, 2012, and July 26, 2012, SIP submissions with regards to the state board majority requirements respecting significant portion of income. EPA will consider action with regards to the infrastructure elements related to PSD permitting, visibility and interstate transport in a separate action.

    DATES:

    This rule will be effective April 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0698. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section (formerly the Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning and Implementation Branch (formerly the Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nacosta C. Ward, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9140. Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS. Section 110(a) of the CAA generally requires states to make a SIP submission to meet applicable requirements in order to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. These SIP submissions are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIP submissions. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make an infrastructure SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the infrastructure SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affect the content of the submission. The contents of such infrastructure SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains. In the case of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states typically have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous ozone NAAQS.

    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these requirements include basic structural SIP elements such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements of section 110(a)(2) are summarized below and in EPA's September 13, 2013, memorandum entitled “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).” 1

    1 Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area plan requirements are due pursuant to other provisions of the CAA for submission of SIP revisions specifically applicable for attainment planning purposes. These requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required in part D Title I of the CAA; and (2) submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today's proposed rulemaking does not address infrastructure elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment planning requirements of 110(a)(2)(C).

    • 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures • 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System • 110(a)(2)(C): Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources 2

    2 This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element as they relate to attainment areas.

    • 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate Pollution Transport • 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and International Air Pollution • 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies • 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting • 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers • 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions • 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas 3

    3 As mentioned above, this element is not relevant to today's rulemaking.

    • 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public Notification, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Visibility Protection • 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling Data • 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees • 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected Local Entities

    On November 24, 2014, EPA proposed to approve in part and disapprove in part, the May 29, 2012, and July 26, 2012, 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submissions with the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), which EPA will address in a separate action. EPA also proposed to disapprove a portion of Mississippi's infrastructure submission for section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) pertaining to state board majority requirements respecting significant portion of income. See 79 FR 69787. EPA did not receive any comments, adverse or otherwise, on the Agency's November 24, 2014, proposed action. In this rulemaking, EPA is taking final action to approve in part and disapprove in part Mississippi's May 29, 2012, and July 26, 2012, infrastructure submissions as demonstrating that the State meets the applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as proposed in the Agency's November 24, 2014, rulemaking. EPA will act on portions of Mississippi's submissions not addressed in today's rulemaking in a separate action.

    II. Final Action

    With the exceptions described below, EPA is taking final action to approve that MDEQ's infrastructure SIP submissions, submitted May 29, 2012, and July 26, 2012, for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS have met the above described infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is disapproving in part section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of Mississippi's infrastructure submissions because the majority of members of boards that approve permits or enforcement orders in Mississippi may still derive a significant portion of income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders issued by such Mississippi boards, and therefore, its current SIP does not meet the section 128(a)(1) majority requirements respecting significant portion of income. This final approval in part and disapproval in part, however, does not include the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), which will be addressed by EPA in a separate action. With the exceptions noted above Mississippi has addressed the elements of the CAA 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements pursuant to section 110 of the CAA to ensure that the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Mississippi.

    III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: February 11, 2015. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart Z—Mississippi 2. Section 52.1270(e) is amended by adding a new entry “110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards” at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.1270 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Mississippi Non-Regulatory Provisions Name of non-regulatory SIP provision Applicable
  • geographic or
  • nonattainment area
  • State submittal date/effective date EPA approval date Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards Mississippi 7/26/2012 3/2/2015 [Insert citation of publication] With the exception of sections:
  • 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) concerning PSD permitting requirements;
  • 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4) concerning interstate transport requirements;
  • 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) concerning state board majority requirements respecting significant portion of income; and
  • 110(a)(2)(J) concerning visibility requirements.
  • 3. Section 52.1272 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 52.1272 Approval status.

    (b) Disapproval. Submittal from the State of Mississippi, through the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on May 29, 2012, and July 26, 2012, to address the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 2008 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards concerning state board majority requirements respecting significant portion of income. EPA is disapproving MDEQ's submittal with respect to section 128(a)(1) because a majority of board members may still derive a significant portion of income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders issued by the Mississippi Boards, therefore, its current SIP does not meet the section 128(a)(1) majority requirements respecting significant portion of income for the 2008 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

    [FR Doc. 2015-04140 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0662; FRL-9923-45-Region 5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; Transportation Conformity AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving, under the Clean Air Act, a revision to Ohio's transportation conformity state implementation plan (SIP) that meets EPA and United States Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements. This revision brings Ohio's transportation conformity SIP into compliance with the requirements of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).

    DATES:

    This direct final rule will be effective May 1, 2015, unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 1, 2015. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0662, by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Fax: (312) 692-2450.

    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0662. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Anthony Maietta, Environmental Protection Specialist, at (312) 353-8777 before visiting the Region 5 office.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anthony Maietta, Environmental Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8777, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    I. What is the background for this action? II. What is EPA's analysis of the state's submittal? III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. I. What is the background for this action?

    A transportation conformity SIP can be adopted as a state rule, a memorandum of understanding, or a memorandum of agreement. The appropriate form of the state transportation conformity procedures depends upon the requirements of local or state law, as long as the selected form complies with all Clean Air Act requirements for adoption, submission to EPA, and implementation of SIPs. EPA will accept state transportation conformity SIPs in any form provided the state can demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that, as a matter of state law, the state has adequate authority to compel compliance with the requirements of the conformity SIP.

    The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) collaborated with the Akron Metropolitan Area Transportation Study, the Clark County-Springfield Transportation Coordinating Committee, the Eastgate Regional Council of Governments, EPA, the Erie Regional Planning Commission, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, the Indiana Department of Transportation, the Kentucky-Ohio-West Virginia Interstate Planning Commission, the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments, the Ohio Department of Transportation, the Licking County Area Transportation Study, the Lima-Allen County Regional Planning Commission, the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission, the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission, the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency, the Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, and the West Virginia Department of Transportation (the agencies listed in this paragraph are referenced as “Federal, state, and local agencies” throughout this document) to develop a transportation conformity SIP revision that meets EPA and DOT transportation conformity requirements resulting from passage of SAFETEA-LU.

    On August 20, 2014, the Ohio EPA submitted a request to EPA to revise the Ohio transportation conformity SIP to include procedures, roles, and responsibilities for involved Federal, state agencies, and local agencies that must conduct transportation conformity planning and consultation.

    II. What is EPA's analysis of the state's submittal? A. Background

    For EPA approval, the submittal must address and give full legal effect to requirements laid out in three sections of title 40, part 93, subpart A of the Code of Federal Regulations: § 93.105, § 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and § 93.125(c).

    40 CFR 93.105: Consultation

    Section 93.105 describes SIP requirements for interagency consultation (between Federal, state, and local agencies), conflict resolution, and public consultation. A transportation conformity SIP must include well defined interagency consultation procedures that define the roles and responsibilities for each participating agency. These consultation procedures must include provisions for circulating materials for comment before formal adoption, processes for convening consultation meetings, and processes for responding to significant comments of involved agencies. In addition, procedures for involved Federal, state, and local agencies must be included that address:

    • Evaluation and selection of an emissions model and associated methods and assumptions to be used in hot-spot and regional emissions analyses, including determining which minor arterials and other transportation projects should be considered regionally significant for purposes of regional emissions analyses.

    • Evaluation and selection of an emissions model, associated methods and assumptions, and projects to be included in determining conformity in isolated rural nonattainment and maintenance areas.

    • Evaluation of events that will trigger new conformity determinations.

    • Consultation on emissions analyses for transportation activities that cross metropolitan planning organization (MPO), nonattainment area, or air basin borders.

    • Determination of conformity of projects that might lie outside of a metropolitan planning area, but within a nonattainment area, if such a situation exists.

    • Disclosure of any regionally significant projects which are not FHWA or FTA projects to the MPO on a regular basis.

    • Interagency consultation on data collection efforts and regional transportation model development by the MPO.

    • Provision of final documentation and supporting information to each agency after approval or adoption.

    • Resolution of conflicts among state agencies or between state agencies and an MPO.

    • Public consultation for affected agencies that make conformity determinations on transportation plans, programs, and projects consistent with the public consultation requirements listed in 23 CFR 450.316(a).

    The Regulations at 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 40 CFR 93.125(c): Written Commitments for Control and Mitigation Measures

    The regulation at 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) provides that a transportation conformity SIP must contain provisions to ensure that any emission reduction credits from control measures that are not included in the SIP and that do not require a regulatory action in order to be implemented will not be included in a project level conformity determination unless the National Environmental Policy Act document includes written commitments from the appropriate entities to implement those control measures. These written commitments must be obtained by the initiating party prior to a conformity determination and the written commitments must be addressed by the initiating party.

    The regulation at 40 CFR 93.125(c) provides that a transportation conformity SIP must contain provisions that ensure project-level mitigation measures will be identified with written commitments if those mitigation measures are part of the conditions for making the project level conformity determination. The commitments must be included in the project design and scope used in the regional emissions analysis or project-level hot-spot analysis.

    The transportation conformity SIP revision submitted by the Ohio EPA on August 20, 2014, meets the requirements of 40 CFR 93.105, 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 93.125(c) and therefore is approvable into the Ohio SIP.

    III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving a revision to Ohio's transportation conformity SIP submitted by Ohio EPA on August 20, 2014. We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective May 1, 2015 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by April 1, 2015. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective May 1, 2015.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: February 12, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. Section 52.1880 is amended by adding paragraph (u) to read as follows:
    § 52.1880 Control strategy; Particulate matter.

    (u) Approval—On August 20, 2014, the State of Ohio submitted a revision to their Particulate Matter State Implementation Plan. The submittal established transportation conformity “Conformity” criteria and procedures related to interagency consultation, and enforceability of certain transportation related control and mitigation measures.

    3. Section 52.1885 is amended by adding paragraph (ll) to read as follows:
    § 52.1885 Control strategy; Ozone.

    (ll) Approval—On August 20, 2014, the State of Ohio submitted a revision to their Ozone State Implementation Plan. The submittal established transportation conformity “Conformity” criteria and procedures related to interagency consultation, and enforceability of certain transportation related control and mitigation measures.

    [FR Doc. 2015-04146 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0694; FRL-9923-56-Region 4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Carolina; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve the July 17, 2012, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, provided by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) for inclusion into the South Carolina SIP. This final rulemaking pertains to the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an “infrastructure” SIP. SC DHEC certified that the South Carolina SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in South Carolina (hereafter referred to as an “infrastructure SIP submission”). With the exception of provisions pertaining to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting, interstate transport, and visibility protection requirements, EPA is taking final action to approve South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission, provided to EPA on July 17, 2012, because it addresses the infrastructure elements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    DATES:

    This rule will be effective April 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0694. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, (formerly the Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning and Implementation Branch, (formerly the Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nacosta C. Ward, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9140. Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS. Section 110(a) of the CAA generally requires states to make a SIP submission to meet applicable requirements in order to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. These SIP submissions are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIP submissions. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make an infrastructure SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the infrastructure SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affect the content of the submission. The contents of such infrastructure SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains. In the case of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states typically have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous ozone NAAQS.

    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these requirements include basic structural SIP elements such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements of section 110(a)(2) are summarized below and in EPA's September 13, 2013, memorandum entitled “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).” 1

    1 Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area plan requirements are due pursuant to other provisions of the CAA for submission of SIP revisions specifically applicable for attainment planning purposes. These requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required in part D Title I of the CAA; and (2) submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today's proposed rulemaking does not address infrastructure elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment planning requirements of 110(a)(2)(C).

    • 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures • 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System • 110(a)(2)(C): Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources 2

    2 This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element as they relate to attainment areas.

    • 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate Pollution Transport • 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and International Air Pollution • 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies • 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting • 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers • 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions • 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas 3

    3 As mentioned above, this element is not relevant to today's rulemaking.

    • 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public Notification, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Visibility Protection • 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling Data • 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees • 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected Local Entities

    On August 22, 2014, EPA proposed to approve South Carolina's July 17, 2012, 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission with the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), which EPA will address in a separate action. See 79 FR 49736. EPA did not receive any comments, adverse or otherwise, on the Agency's August 22, 2014, proposed action. In this rulemaking, EPA is taking final action to approve South Carolina's infrastructure submission as demonstrating that the State meets the applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as proposed in the Agency's August 22, 2014 rulemaking. EPA will act on other portions of South Carolina's submission in a separate action.

    II. Final Action

    With the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), EPA is taking final action to approve South Carolina's July 17, 2012, SIP submission. This submission addresses infrastructure requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the South Carolina SIP. With the exceptions noted above SC DHEC has addressed the elements of the CAA 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements pursuant to section 110 of the CAA to ensure that the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in South Carolina.

    III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this action for the state of South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the State of South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, “all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.” However, EPA has determined that because this rule does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe because, as noted above, this action is not approving any specific rule, but rather proposing that South Carolina's already approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements. EPA notes today's action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: February 11, 2015. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart PP—South Carolina 2. Section 52.2120(e), is amended by adding a new entry “110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards” at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.2120 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved South Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions Provision State effective date EPA Approval date Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 7/17/2012 3/2/2015 [Insert citation of publication] With the exception of PSD permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J); interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II), and the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J).
    [FR Doc. 2015-04142 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 1803, 1816, and 1852 RIN 2700-AE08 NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NFS); Contractor Whistleblower Protections AGENCY:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    NASA has adopted, without change, an interim rule amending the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to implement Contractor Whistleblower Protections.

    DATES:

    Effective date: April 1, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Leigh Pomponio, NASA, Office of Procurement, Contract and Grant Policy Division, 300 E Street SW. (Suite 5K32), Washington, DC 20546; (202) 358-0592; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background

    An interim rule was published on July 29, 2014 (79 FR 43958) implementing 10 U.S.C. 2409, as amended by section 846 of the national Defense Authorization Act for FY 2008 (Pub. L. 110-181) and section 827 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239). The interim rule implemented Whistleblower protections for contractor employees performing under contracts with NASA.

    On August 29, 2014, technical amendments to the interim rule were published in the Federal Register (79 FR 51501). The technical amendments corrected the numbering of two sections. NASA received no comments on the interim rule and has adopted the interim rule as a final rule without change.

    B. 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 rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NASA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, at 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because it does not alter the solicitation or contract polices or procedures, nor does it create whistleblower protections for contractor employees. Such protections currently exist and this case sets forth requirements for contractors to notify employees of their rights and includes procedures and processes for contractor employees to exercise their rights.

    D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. in accordance with The Paperwork Reduction Act.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1803, 1816, and 1852

    Government procurement.

    Cynthia D. Boots, Alternate Federal Register Liaison. PARTS 1803, 1816, AND 1852—[AMENDED] Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR parts 1803, 1816, and 1852 which was published at 79 FR 43958 on July 29, 2014, and technically amended by publication at 79 FR 51501, is adopted as a final rule without change.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04227 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 140117052-4402-02] RIN 0648-XD778 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder Fishery; Quota Transfer AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; quota transfer.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces that the State of North Carolina is transferring a portion of its 2015 commercial summer flounder quota to the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of New Jersey. These quota adjustments are necessary to comply with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan quota transfer provision. This announcement is intended to inform the public of the revised commercial quota for each state involved.

    DATES:

    Effective February 25, 2015, through December 31, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reid Lichwell, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9112.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.110. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from North Carolina through Maine. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state are described in § 648.10(c)(1)(i).

    The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan provided a mechanism for summer flounder quota to be transferred from one state to another (December 17, 1993; 58 FR 65936). Two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator, can transfer or combine summer flounder commercial quota under § 648.102(c)(2). The Regional Administrator is required to consider the criteria in § 648.102(c)(2)(i) when evaluating requests for quota transfers or combinations.

    North Carolina has agreed to transfer 23,480 lb (10,650 kg) of its 2015 commercial quota to Virginia. This transfer was prompted by landings of the F/V Illusion and the F/V Jo Ann B, North Carolina vessels that were granted safe harbor in Virginia due to hazardous weather, medical emergencies, and mechanical failure on January 5 and 15, 2015. As a result of these landings, a quota transfer is necessary to account for an increase in Virginia's landings that would have otherwise accrued against the North Carolina quota. North Carolina has also agreed to transfer 9,062 lb (4,110 kg) of its 2015 commercial quota to New Jersey. This transfer was prompted by summer flounder landings of the F/V Bella Sky, a North Carolina vessel that was granted safe harbor in New Jersey due to mechanical failure on January 29, 2015. The quota transfer is necessary to account for an increase in New Jersey's landings that would have otherwise accrued against the North Carolina quota.

    The Regional Administrator has determined that the criteria set forth in § 648.102(c)(2)(i) have been met. These transfers are consistent with the criteria because they will not preclude the overall annual quota from being fully harvested, the transfers address an unforeseen variation or contingency in the fishery, and the transfers are consistent with the objectives of the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The revised summer flounder commercial quotas for calendar year 2015 are: New Jersey, 1,860,420 lb (843,872 kg); Virginia, 2,383,120 lb (1,080,965 kg); and North Carolina, 3,005,551 lb (1,363,295 kg).

    Classification

    This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: February 24, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04215 Filed 2-25-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 40 Monday, March 2, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-1127; Directorate Identifier 2014-NE-16-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Pratt & Whitney (PW) JT8D-217C and JT8D-219 turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the low-pressure turbine (LPT) shaft. This proposed AD establishes a new lower life limit for these parts and would require removing affected LPT shafts from service using a drawdown plan. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the LPT shaft, which could lead to an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone: 860-565-8770; fax: 860-565-4503. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-1127; 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:

    Jo-Ann Theriault, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7105; 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-2014-1127; Directorate Identifier 2014-NE-16-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

    We received reports of two LPT shafts with in-shop findings of fatigue cracks on the No. 4.5 bearing thread undercut adjacent to oil feed holes. The cracks were discovered during routine fluorescent penetrant inspections. Both shafts had oil feed hole enlargement rework accomplished. The root cause is increased stress on the fillet of the thread undercut region in front of the oil feed holes caused by oil feed hole rework. The increased stress reduces the low cycle fatigue life of the shaft. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the LPT shaft, which could lead to an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed PW Service Bulletin (SB) No. JT8D 6504, dated November 5, 2014. The SB contains additional information regarding removal of the LPT shaft. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    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 removing affected LPT shafts from service.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 744 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. We estimate the pro-rated replacement cost would be $28,230. We also estimate that shaft replacement would be accomplished during an engine shop visit at no additional labor cost. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $21,003,120.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Pratt & Whitney: Docket No. FAA-2014-1127; Directorate Identifier 2014-NE-16-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 1, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney (PW) JT8D-217C and JT8D-219 turbofan engines with low-pressure turbine (LPT) shaft part numbers 783319, 783319-001, 783319-003, 783319-004, 783320, 783320-001, 783320-003, 783320-004, 820514-001, 820514-003, 820514-004, or 820514-005, installed.

    (d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the LPT shaft. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the LPT shaft, which could lead to an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.

    (e) Compliance

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

    For engines with an LPT shaft part number listed in paragraph (c) of this AD:

    (1) If the LPT shaft has 15,000 or fewer cycles since new (CSN) on the effective date of this AD, remove it from service before it accumulates 20,000 CSN.

    (2) If the LPT shaft has more than 15,000 CSN on the effective date of this AD, remove it from service before it accumulates 5,000 additional cycles in service, or at the next piece-part exposure after accumulating 20,000 CSN, whichever occurs first.

    (3) After the effective date of this AD, do not install any LPT shaft listed in paragraph (c) of this AD that is at piece-part exposure and exceeds the new life limit of 20,000 CSN, into any engine.

    (f) Definitions

    For the purpose of this AD, piece-part exposure is when the LPT shaft is completely disassembled from the engine.

    (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 Jo-Ann Theriault, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7105; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (2) PW Service Bulletin No. JT8D 6504, dated November 5, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this proposed AD, can be obtained from PW using the contact information in paragraph (h)(3) of this proposed AD.

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

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

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 20, 2015. Colleen M. D'Alessandro, Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04059 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-136018-13] RIN 1545-BM20 Determination of Adjusted Applicable Federal Rates Under Section 1288 and the Adjusted Federal Long-Term Rate Under Section 382 AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains proposed regulations that provide the method to be used to adjust the applicable Federal rates (AFRs) under section 1288 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) (adjusted AFRs) for tax-exempt obligations and the method to be used to determine the long-term tax-exempt rate and the adjusted Federal long-term rate under section 382. For tax-exempt obligations, the proposed regulations affect the determination of original issue discount under section 1273 and of total unstated interest under section 483. In addition, the proposed regulations affect the determination of the limitations under sections 382 and 383 on the use of certain operating loss carryforwards, tax credits, and other attributes of corporations following ownership changes. This document also contains a request for comments and provides notice of a public hearing on these proposed regulations.

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments must be received by June 1, 2015. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for June 24, 2015 must be received by June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-136018-13), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-136018-13), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically, via the Federal eRulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-136018-13). The public hearing will be held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed regulations under section 1288, Jason G. Kurth at (202) 317-6842; concerning the proposed regulations under section 382, William W. Burhop at (202) 317-6847; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing, and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, Oluwafunmilayo (Funmi) Taylor at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    This document contains proposed amendments to 26 CFR part 1 (Income Tax Regulations) under sections 382 and 1288 of the Code. The proposed regulations provide the new method by which the Treasury Department and the IRS propose to determine the adjusted AFRs under section 1288 to take into account the tax exemption for interest on tax-exempt obligations (as defined in section 1275(a)(3) and § 1.1275-1(e)) and the long-term tax-exempt rate and the adjusted Federal long-term rate under section 382(f) to take into account differences between rates on long-term taxable and tax-exempt obligations.

    Section 1274(d) directs the Secretary to determine the AFRs that are used for determining the imputed principal amount of debt instruments to which section 1274 applies, computing total unstated interest on payments to which section 483 applies, and other purposes. Under section 1274(d)(1), the AFR is: (i) In the case of a debt instrument with a term not over three years, the Federal short-term rate; (ii) in the case of a debt instrument with a term over three years but not over nine years, the Federal mid-term rate; and (iii) in the case of a debt instrument with a term over nine years, the Federal long-term rate. Sections 1274(d)(2) and (3) provide special rules for selecting the appropriate AFR in specified circumstances. Section 1274(d)(2) provides that, in the case of a sale or exchange, the AFR shall be the lowest AFR in effect for any month in the 3-calendar-month period ending with the first calendar month in which there is a binding contract in writing for the sale or exchange. Section 1274(d)(3) requires that options to renew or extend be taken into account in determining the term of a debt instrument. During each month, the Treasury Department determines the AFRs that will apply during the following calendar month based on the average market yield of outstanding marketable obligations of the United States with appropriate maturities. See § 1.1274-4(b). The IRS publishes the AFRs for each month in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)).

    Section 1288(b)(1) provides that, in applying section 483 or section 1274 to a tax-exempt obligation, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, appropriate adjustments shall be made to the AFR to take into account the tax exemption for interest on the obligation. The IRS publishes the adjusted AFRs for each month in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)).

    In the case of a corporation that has undergone an ownership change described in section 382(g): (i) Section 382 places an annual limit (the section 382 limitation) on the amount of the corporation's taxable income that may be offset by certain net operating loss carryforwards and built-in losses; and (ii) section 383 places a limit, determined by reference to the section 382 limitation, on the amount of the corporation's income tax liability that may be offset by certain tax credits and other tax attributes. Under section 382(b)(1), the section 382 limitation generally equals the product of (A) the value of the stock of the corporation immediately prior to the ownership change and (B) the long-term tax-exempt rate.

    Section 382(f)(1) defines the long-term tax-exempt rate as the highest of the adjusted Federal long-term rates in effect for any month in the three-calendar-month period ending with the calendar month in which the ownership change occurs. Section 382(f)(2) provides that the term “adjusted Federal long-term rate” means the Federal long-term rate determined under section 1274(d), except that sections 1274(d)(2) and (3) shall not apply, and such rate shall be properly adjusted for differences between rates on long-term taxable and tax-exempt obligations.

    Section 382(f) was added to the Code by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Public Law 99-514 (100 Stat. 2254). The Report of the Committee on Ways and Means on H.R. 3838, the Tax Reform Act of 1985 (the title of the Act as it passed the House), states that the long-term tax-exempt rate should be determined by adjusting the Federal long-term rate (determined under section 1274) pursuant to section 1288 to take into account tax exemption. H.R. Rep. No. 99-426, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. 268 (1985) (1986-3 CB (Vol. 2) 1, 268). The Conference Report for the Tax Reform Act of 1986 states that the adjusted Federal long-term rate is to be computed as the yield on a diversified pool of prime, general obligation tax-exempt bonds with remaining periods to maturity of more than nine years. The report also explains that it is necessary to the purposes of section 382 that the long-term tax-exempt rate be lower than the Federal long-term rate. Further, the Committee anticipated that the long-term tax-exempt rate would ordinarily fall in a range between (i) the Federal long-term rate multiplied by a percentage equal to the difference between 100 percent and the corporate tax rate, and (ii) 100 percent of the Federal long-term rate. 2 H.R. Rep. No. 99-841 (Conf. Rep.), 99th Cong., 2d Sess. II-188 (1986) (1986-3 CB (Vol. 4) 1, 188). Under current tax rates, that would be between 65 percent and 100 percent of the Federal long-term rate.

    Since November 1986, the adjusted Federal long-term rate published under section 382(f)(2) has been equal to the long-term adjusted AFR with annual compounding published under section 1288(b) in the same month. See Rev. Rul. 86-133 (1986-2 CB 59) (see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)). For calendar months from November 1986 to February 2013, the Treasury Department determined the adjusted Federal long-term rate and each adjusted AFR described in section 1288(b)(1) by multiplying the corresponding AFR by a fraction (the adjustment factor). The numerator of the adjustment factor was a composite yield of the highest-grade tax-exempt obligations available, which are prime, general obligation tax-exempt obligations. The denominator was a composite yield of U.S. Treasury obligations with maturities similar to those of the tax-exempt obligations. Each of the composite yields was measured over a one-month period.

    Since the beginning of 2008, market yields of prime, general obligation tax-exempt obligations have sometimes exceeded market yields of comparable U.S. Treasury obligations, causing the adjusted Federal long-term rate and each adjusted AFR to exceed the corresponding AFRs. This relationship between the adjusted rates and the corresponding AFRs showed that the adjustment factor no longer served the purposes of sections 1288(b)(1) and 382(f)(2), which require adjustments to reflect only tax exemption, not credit quality. These rates are also inconsistent with the express intention of Congress that the adjusted Federal long-term rate and the long-term tax-exempt rate be lower than the Federal long-term rate.

    Request for Comments and Summary of Comments

    In response, the IRS published Notice 2013-4 (2013-9 IRB 527) on February 25, 2013, requesting comments on possible modifications to the method by which adjusted AFRs and the adjusted Federal long-term rate are determined. The notice solicited comments on several potential adjustment factors. One proposal was an adjustment factor based on tax rates, under which each adjusted AFR would be the product of (A) the appropriate AFR, and (B) the excess of (i) one hundred percent over (ii) a tax rate or a fixed percentage of a tax rate. Another proposal was an adjustment factor based on historical data, under which the adjustment factor would be fixed at an amount that would produce a spread between Federal long-term rates and adjusted Federal long-term rates equal to the average spread between those rates during the period from 1986 through 2007 (which is the period before changes in market conditions elevated the yields of many obligations in relation to U.S. Treasury obligations). The notice also requested comments on whether the adjusted Federal long-term rate described in section 382(f)(2) should continue to be determined in the same manner as the adjusted AFRs described in section 1288(b)(1).

    Notice 2013-4 provided that, until the Treasury Department and the IRS issue further guidance, the adjusted AFRs and the long-term tax-exempt rate would continue to be calculated using the adjustment factor, except that the adjustment factor would equal one for any month in which the adjustment factor would otherwise be greater than one or in which the denominator of the adjustment factor would otherwise be less than or equal to zero.

    The IRS received two comments in response to Notice 2013-4. One commenter recommended an adjustment factor based on tax rates for purposes of section 1288, and made no recommendation regarding section 382. That commenter suggested that the proper tax rate to use to calculate the adjusted AFRs is the highest individual tax rate set forth in section 1, increased by the tax rate under section 1411 applicable to the investment income of individuals.

    The other commenter recommended the use of historical data to determine the lowest individual marginal tax rate needed to attract sufficient investors to clear the market supply of tax-exempt obligations for purposes of section 1288. That commenter recommended that there be no change to the calculation of the long-term tax-exempt rate under section 382. In the alternative, the commenter recommended that the adjusted Federal long-term rate described in section 382(f) be subject to a floor because the commenter argued that section 382 is intended to defer rather than eliminate net operating losses, and the lower the long-term tax-exempt rate, the greater the likelihood that net operating losses subject to section 382 limitation will expire before they are used.

    Explanation of Provisions

    The language and purposes of sections 382 and 1288 suggest that AFRs are to be adjusted in the same manner for purposes of both provisions. Implementation of each provision requires an adjustment to take into account the effect of tax exemption on market yields. Therefore, under these proposed regulations, the adjusted Federal long-term rate under section 382(f) would continue to be determined in the same manner as the adjusted AFRs under section 1288.

    The Treasury Department and the IRS recognize that, to be entirely consistent with the language and legislative history of sections 382 and 1288, the adjusted Federal long-term rate and each adjusted AFR should be determined based on the current market yield on a pool of tax-exempt obligations that have terms, features, and credit quality matching those of U.S. Treasury obligations, which would result in an adjusted Federal long-term rate or adjusted AFR that is lower than the corresponding AFR. However, under recent market conditions tax-exempt obligations with perceived credit qualities approximating U.S. Treasury obligations arguably no longer exist. Because of the increasing spreads between the yields of U.S. Treasury obligations and other debt instruments, the yield of a pool of tax-exempt obligations will likely be higher than the yield of similar U.S. Treasury obligations and the AFR for the corresponding term.

    During the period from 1986 to 2007, certain tax-exempt obligations satisfied the criteria in the Code and the legislative history. As discussed in this preamble, the current adjustment factor is based on the ratio of yields on prime, general obligation tax-exempt obligations to yields of U.S. Treasury obligations with similar maturities. From 1986 to 2007, that ratio (and, as a result, the ratios of adjusted AFRs and adjusted Federal long-term rates to AFRs) was, on average, approximately equal to one minus 59 percent of the maximum individual tax rate under section 1. That relationship was relatively stable over the period; the ratio of the spread between the yields to the maximum individual tax rate under section 1 generally did not vary by more than a few percentage points. In the absence of current market data from tax-exempt obligations and U.S. Treasury obligations with similar maturities and similar credit quality, the Treasury Department and the IRS believe this historical market data provides the best indication of the effect of a tax exemption on market yields.

    The Treasury Department and the IRS therefore propose use of this historical market data to create an appropriate adjustment factor based on individual tax rates. Consistent with a proposal in Notice 2013-4 and one commenter's suggestion regarding section 1288, the proposed adjustment factor is one minus the product of a tax rate and a fixed percentage. The Treasury Department would therefore determine the adjusted AFRs and the adjusted Federal long-term rate for each month from the appropriate AFRs for that month using the proposed adjustment factor that results from the following calculation: 100 percent − [(a combined tax rate) × (a fixed percentage)]. Consistent with both commenters' suggestions regarding section 1288, the tax rate is the maximum individual tax rate.

    Specifically, the tax rate in the proposed adjustment factor is the sum of the maximum individual rate under section 1 and the maximum individual rate under section 1411 for the month to which the rate applies. Using current maximum individual tax rates under sections 1 and 1411, the combined tax rate in the calculation would be 43.4 percent, the sum of 39.6 percent and 3.8 percent. High-income individuals purchase a large percentage of municipal bonds because these purchasers benefit the most from the tax exemption. While individual and corporate tax rates were relatively stable from 1986 to 2007, data analyzed by the Treasury Department indicate that the differential between yields on tax-exempt municipal bonds and comparable U.S. Treasury obligations was significantly more correlated with the highest individual income tax rates than with corporate tax rates. Thus, an adjustment factor based on the maximum individual tax rate allows a better approximation of the market-based adjustment that Congress intended than would one based on a corporate tax rate. The tax on net investment income under section 1411 is included in the proposed adjustment factor to account for the entire rate of federal tax imposed on high-income individuals who hold taxable obligations.

    The fixed percentage is the amount by which that combined tax rate must be multiplied to reflect the historical relationship between the maximum tax rate and the spread between yields of taxable and tax-exempt obligations. The spread is less than 100% of the maximum tax rate because, for example, issuers of tax-exempt bonds need to attract purchasers with effective tax rates lower than the maximum individual tax rate. The fixed percentage in the proposed adjustment factor is 59 percent, because the yield on tax-exempt obligations from February 1986 to July 2007 was lower than that of comparable taxable obligations by, on average, 59 percent of the maximum individual rate in effect under section 1.

    Therefore, the adjustment factor under current tax rates would be 74.39 percent, the result of subtracting 25.61 percent (the product of 43.4 percent and 59 percent) from 100 percent. If an AFR for a given month were 5 percent, under current tax rates, the corresponding adjusted AFR would be 3.72 percent: The product of 74.39 percent and 5 percent. If that 5 percent AFR were the Federal long-term rate for debt instruments with annual compounding, the adjusted Federal long-term rate under section 382 would likewise be 3.72 percent.

    The proposed regulations do not adopt the suggestion of one commenter that the adjusted Federal long-term rate described in section 382(f) be subject to a floor because that would be inconsistent with the primary purpose of section 382. The primary purpose of section 382 is to preserve the integrity of the carryover provisions by discouraging tax-motivated corporate acquisitions while allowing the carryover provisions to perform their intended averaging function. To accomplish this purpose, section 382 seeks to limit the use of pre-change losses by an acquiring corporation to no more than the loss corporation's ability to use such losses, with that limit being determined by multiplying the long-term tax-exempt rate—a rate below the Federal long-term rate—by the value of the loss corporation. The Conference Report for the Tax Reform Act of 1986 explains:

    The use of a rate lower than the long-term Federal rate is necessary to ensure that the value of NOL carryforwards to the buying corporation is not more than their value to the loss corporation. Otherwise there would be a tax incentive for acquiring loss corporations. If the loss corporation were to sell its assets and invest in long-term Treasury obligations, it could absorb its NOL carryforwards at a rate equal to the yield on long-term government obligations. Since the price paid by the buyer is larger than the value of the loss company's assets (because of the value of NOL carryforwards are taken into account), applying the long-term Treasury rate to the purchase price would result in faster utilization of NOL carryforwards by the buying corporation.

    2 H.R. Rep. No. 99-841 (Conf. Rep.), 99th Cong., 2d Sess. II-188 (1986) (1986-3 CB (Vol. 4) 1, 188).

    Imposing a floor on the adjusted Federal long-term rate, and thereby on the long-term tax-exempt rate, would reduce the effect of the mechanism Congress established to ensure that the value of net operating loss carryforwards to the acquiring corporation is not more than the value of those carryforwards to the loss corporation. Moreover, as a matter of statutory interpretation, an upward adjustment of the adjusted Federal long-term rate to comply with a fixed minimum level would disregard the express direction of Congress to determine the adjusted Federal long-term rate based on the Federal long-term rate determined under section 1274(d), which is not subject to a floor, with adjustments to take into account the differences between rates on taxable and tax-exempt obligations. Further, the legislative history of section 382(f) suggests that Congress intended that the adjusted Federal long-term rate be determined in a manner similar to the adjusted AFR under section 1288.

    The tax rate used to determine adjusted AFRs under these proposed regulations differs from the tax rate used to determine the interest rate on demand deposit securities under the State and Local Government Series (SLGS). Demand deposit SLGS securities are one-day certificates of indebtedness that are automatically rolled over each day until the holder requests redemption. See 31 CFR 344.7. The interest rate on the securities is based on yields of 13-week Treasury bills, with a number of adjustments. Among the adjustments is multiplying the annualized Treasury bill yield by the excess of one over the estimated marginal tax rate of purchasers of tax-exempt bonds. That estimated marginal tax rate is published from time to time in the Federal Register and is currently 39.6 percent. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on whether the interest rate on SLGS should reflect the same correction for tax exemption as the adjusted AFRs (the product of the fixed percentage and the combined tax rate).

    Proposed Effective/Applicability Date

    These regulations are proposed to apply to calendar months beginning after the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in the Federal Register.

    Special Analyses

    It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comments on its impact on small business.

    Comments and Public Hearing

    Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight (8) copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the ADDRESSES heading. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed rules. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying at www.regulations.gov or upon request.

    A public hearing has been scheduled for June 24, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter through the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

    The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit written (signed original and eight (8) copies) or electronic comments and an outline of the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic by June 1, 2015. A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments. An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing.

    Drafting Information

    The principal authors of the proposed regulations are Jason G. Kurth, IRS Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and Products) and William W. Burhop, IRS Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 is amended by adding entries in numerical order to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Section 1.382-12 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 382(f) and 26 U.S.C. 382(m). * * *

    Section 1.1288-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1288(b). * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.382-1 is amended by revising the introductory text and adding an entry for § 1.382-12 to read as follows:
    § 1.382-1 Table of contents.

    This section lists the captions that appear in the regulations for §§ 1.382-2 through 1.382-12.

    § 1.382-12 Determination of adjusted Federal long-term rate.

    (a) In general.

    (b) Adjusted Federal long-term rate.

    (c) Adjustment factor.

    (d) Effective/applicability date.

    Par. 3. Section 1.382-12 is added to read as follows:
    § 1.382-12 Determination of adjusted Federal long-term rate.

    (a) In general. The long-term tax-exempt rate for an ownership change is the highest of the adjusted Federal long-term rates in effect for any month in the 3-calendar-month period ending with the calendar month in which the change date occurs. For purposes of the previous sentence, the adjusted Federal long-term rate is the Federal long-term rate determined under section 1274(d) (without regard to paragraphs (2) and (3) thereof), adjusted for differences between rates on long-term taxable and tax-exempt obligations. The Secretary calculates the adjusted Federal long-term rate as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. The Internal Revenue Service publishes the long-term tax-exempt rate and the adjusted Federal long-term rate for each month in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii) of this chapter).

    (b) Adjusted Federal long-term rate. The adjusted Federal long-term rate for a calendar month is the product of the Federal long-term rate determined under section 1274(d) for that month, based on annual compounding, multiplied by the adjustment factor described in paragraph (c) of this section.

    (c) Adjustment factor. The adjustment factor is a percentage equal to—

    (1) The excess of 100 percent, over

    (2) The product of—

    (i) 59 percent, and

    (ii) The sum of the maximum rate in effect under section 1 applicable to individuals and the maximum rate in effect under section 1411 applicable to individuals for the month to which the adjusted applicable Federal rate applies.

    (d) Effective/applicability date. The rules of this section apply to the determination of the long-term tax-exempt rate and the adjusted Federal long-term rate during calendar months beginning after the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in the Federal Register.

    Par. 4. Section 1.1288-1 is added to read as follows:
    § 1.1288-1 Adjustment of applicable Federal rate for tax-exempt obligations.

    (a) In general. In applying section 483 or section 1274 to a tax-exempt obligation, the applicable Federal rate is adjusted to take into account the tax exemption for interest on the obligation. For each applicable Federal rate determined under section 1274(d), the Secretary computes a corresponding adjusted applicable Federal rate by multiplying the applicable Federal rate by the adjustment factor described in paragraph (b) of this section. The Internal Revenue Service publishes the applicable Federal rates and the adjusted applicable Federal rates for each month in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii) of this chapter).

    (b) Adjustment factor. The adjustment factor is a percentage equal to—

    (1) The excess of 100 percent, over

    (2) The product of—

    (i) 59 percent, and

    (ii) The sum of the maximum rate in effect under section 1 applicable to individuals and the maximum rate in effect under section 1411 applicable to individuals for the month to which the adjusted applicable Federal rate applies.

    (c) Effective/applicability date. The rules of this section apply to the determination of adjusted applicable Federal rates during calendar months beginning after the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in the Federal Register.

    John M. Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04213 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0019] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Xterra Swim, Myrtle Beach, SC AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to issue a temporary safety zone on the waters of the Intracoastal Waterway in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. The Xterra Swim is scheduled to take place on Sunday, May 3, 2015. The temporary safety zone is necessary for the safety of the swimmers, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public during the event. The temporary safety zone will restrict vessel traffic in a portion of the Intracoastal Waterway, preventing non-participant vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number using any one of the following methods:

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

    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.

    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

    See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these three methods.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Chief Warrant Officer Christopher Ruleman, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-3184, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

    1. Submitting Comments

    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. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number USCG-2015-0019 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

    2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number USCG-2015-0019 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one on or before April 3, 2015, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 160.5; Public Law 107-295; 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    The purpose of the rule is to ensure safety of life on the navigable water of the United States during the Xterra Swim.

    C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters of Intracoastal Waterway in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina during the Xterra Swim. The race is scheduled to take place, May 3, 2015 from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. The Xterra Swim race consists of a 1000 meter swim with approximately 150 swimmers. The race will begin a 1000 meters north of Battery Boat Ramp and end at the boat ramp. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the temporary safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    D. 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.

    1. 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.

    The economic impact of this proposed rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) Non-participant persons and vessels may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during the enforcement periods if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; (2) vessels not able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative may operate in the surrounding areas during the enforcement period; and (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the temporary safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owner or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during the enforcement period. For the reasons discussed in Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    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.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

    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.

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 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 determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 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.

    12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use . . .

    13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary safety zone issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) 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 rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add a temporary § 165.T07-0019 to read as follows:
    § 165.T07-0019 Safety Zone; Xterra Swim, Myrtle Beach, SC.

    (a) Regulated Area. The rule establishes special local regulations on certain waters of Intracoastal Waterway, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. The special local regulations will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. until 8:30 a.m. on May 3, 2015. The special local regulations consist of the following two points of position and the North shore: 33°45.076 N, 78°50.790 W to 33°45.323 N, 78°50.214 W.

    (b) Definition. The term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated areas.

    (c) Regulations.

    (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    (2) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Marine Safety Information Bulletins, Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    (d) Effective Date. This rule is effective and will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. on Sunday, May 3, 2015.

    Dated: February 19, 2015. B. D. Falk, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Charleston.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04287 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0662; FRL-9923-44-Region 5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; Transportation Conformity AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, under the Clean Air Act, a revision to Ohio's transportation conformity state implementation plan (SIP) that meets EPA and United States Department of Transportation requirements. The inclusion of this SIP update brings Ohio's transportation conformity SIP into compliance with the requirements of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0662, by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Fax: (312) 692-2450.

    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anthony Maietta, Environmental Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8777, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: February 12, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04148 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0036] RIN 2127-AL05 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages AGENCY:

    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This document supplements NHTSA's March 2012 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 210, “Seat belt assembly anchorages,” to specify a force application device (FAD) for use as a testing interface to transfer loads onto the seat belt anchorage system during compliance tests of anchorage strength. The agency received a number of comments on the NPRM that raised issues concerning the feasibility of the FAD proposal. After reviewing the comments, NHTSA has decided to propose in this SNPRM an alternative test procedure, i.e., one that would maintain the current FMVSS No. 210 body blocks and adopt procedures ensuring that the placement of the body blocks, at pre-load, is sufficiently specified. The agency requests comments on this alternative strategy and other potential enhancements to the current body block test procedure.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should state the docket number of this document.

    You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324.

    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below.

    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For non-legal issues: Ms. Carla Rush, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-4583, fax 202-493-2739).

    For legal issues: Mr. John Piazza, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-2992, fax 202-366-3820).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background a. NPRM for New FAD b. FMVSS No. 210 c. History Surrounding the Development of the FAD II. Overview of NPRM Comments a. Design and Performance of the FAD Device b. Harmonization c. Proposed Test Procedure d. Cost and Lead Time III. Alternative Strategy Under Consideration—Maintaining the Body Blocks and Refining the Test Procedure a. Preliminary Zone Concept for Placement of the Body Blocks b. Planned Research To Evaluate Alternative Strategy IV. Request for Public Comments on Alternative Strategy V. Public Participation VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices I. Background a. NPRM for New FAD

    On March 30, 2012, the agency published in the Federal Register an NPRM (77 FR 19155) that proposed to amend FMVSS No. 210 to replace the pelvic body block and the upper torso body block with a new Force Application Device (FAD). The rationale provided for the proposal included the FAD's ease of use, that it is representative of the human form, and, most importantly, that it provides a consistent test configuration and load path to the seat belt assembly anchorages without affecting the stringency of the compliance test.

    b. FMVSS No. 210

    FMVSS No. 210, “Seat belt assembly anchorages,” applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. The standard establishes requirements for seat belt assembly anchorages to ensure the anchorages are properly located for effective occupant restraint and to reduce the likelihood of their failure. As to the latter, the standard requires seat belt anchorages to withstand specified forces to increase the likelihood that the belts will remain attached to the vehicle structure in a crash. Under the standard, seat belt anchorage assemblies for combination lap/shoulder belts must withstand a 13,345 Newton (N) force (3,000 pounds) applied to the lap belt portion of the seat belt assembly simultaneously with a 13,345 N force applied to the shoulder belt portion of the seat belt assembly. The 13,345 N force must be attained in not more than 30 seconds and maintained for 10 seconds.1 In the current standard, these forces are applied to the shoulder portion of the belt (for a lap/shoulder belt) by an upper torso body block (Figure 3 in FMVSS No. 210) and the lap belt portion of the belt by a pelvic body block 2 (Figures 2A and 2B in FMVSS No. 210).

    1 For lap belt-only anchorages, the seat belt anchorage must withstand a force as it is increased to 22,241 N (5,000 pounds) in not more than thirty seconds and withstand that force as it is held for 10 seconds.

    2 The particular pelvic body block used depends on the type of seat. Typically the body block in Figure 2A of FMVSS No. 210 is used. The Figure 2B body block of FMVSS No. 210 is optionally used for center seating positions.

    c. History Surrounding the Development of the FAD

    The current standard does not expressly specify the position the body blocks must be in relative to the seat prior to the strength testing. The absence of this information has, in the past, resulted in manufacturers conducting compliance testing differently than NHTSA, as illustrated in an enforcement action brought against a manufacturer in the 1990s for an apparent noncompliance with FMVSS No. 210.3 In the compliance test at issue in the Chrysler case, NHTSA positioned the pelvic body block away from the rear seat back. Chrysler argued that its vehicle met FMVSS No. 210 when tested with the body block placed against the seat back, and that NHTSA's placement of the pelvic body block forward of the seat back was not required by FMVSS No. 210. Ultimately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit determined that NHTSA failed to provide adequate notice about the correct placement of the pelvic body block during the test.

    3 See United States v. Chrysler Corp., 158 F.3d 1350 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

    In the NPRM proposing the FAD, the agency identified several other challenges associated with the use of the body blocks in addition to the issues with positioning the devices. First, the body blocks typically require two technicians to position them, and positioning may be a somewhat iterative process because the upper torso block can move in a way that causes a loss of tension during set-up. Additionally, due to the range of motion associated with the body blocks (which can move independently of each other), there can be some spooling out of the seat belt webbing during an FMVSS No. 210 test. For some test fixtures utilizing a hydraulic ram with a fixed stroke, the ram can reach its full stroke before a requisite force level is reached.

    In order to address the issues identified by the Chrysler court and resolve some of the challenges associated with the test set-up and performance of the body blocks, the agency embarked on a program to develop a new FMVSS No. 210 test device. The FAD consists of an upper torso portion and a pelvic portion hinged together to form a one-piece device, and is available in two sizes. The two different size versions of the FADs are called FAD1 and FAD2. The external dimensions of the FAD1 are based on digital data developed by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) as a representation of the 50th percentile adult male.4 NHTSA developed the specifications for the FAD2, a smaller version of the force application device, to use at designated seating positions that are too narrow in width to accommodate the FAD1, such as some rear center seats in passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles.

    4 Robbins, D., “Anthropometric Specifications for Mid-Size Male Dummy,” Volume 2, UMTRI, DOT HS 806 716 (1985).

    II. Overview of NPRM Comments

    The agency received 13 comments in response to the NPRM from vehicle manufacturers and groups, suppliers, and a test facility.5 The commenters stated a number of concerns with the proposed use of the FAD. We believe that many of the commenters' concerns and questions might stem from lack of hands-on experience with the new FAD. While these comments will be responded to in the final notice, they are briefly summarized in the following sections.

    5 These included: The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Recreation Vehicle Industry Association, Inc., National Truck Equipment Association, Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association, Hino Motors, Ltd., Navistar, Inc., Daimler Trucks North America, Nissan North America, Inc., American Honda Motor Co., Inc., EvoBus GmbH, Freedman Seating Company, Johnson Controls, Inc., and TÜV Rheinland Kraftfahrt GmbH.

    a. Design and Performance of the FAD Device

    Several commenters raised concerns associated with the performance of their seat belt assemblies during compliance testing if tested with the FADs. The medium to heavy-duty vehicle industry was notably concerned with the lack of testing with the FAD on medium to heavy-duty trucks and how the FAD could potentially affect the performance of their seat belt anchorages during compliance testing. A number of commenters noted the differences in the FAD's range of motion (i.e., the manner in which the FAD moved during testing) and load values (in NHTSA's testing) in comparison to the current body blocks.

    The agency also received several comments on the FAD's design. Commenters questioned the durability and strength of the FADs since the agency did not conduct tests to failure, as commenters suggested that vehicle manufacturers do. There were also concerns with respect to the potential for seat belt slippage during FAD testing because of the FAD's polyurethane smoothness. Commenters also believed there was potential for certain FAD parts to cause damage to the seat belt webbing, and expressed concern about an observation that the bridged pull yoke digs into the seat. Others asked why a test device with a human form is superior to the current blocks, and some made note of the increased weight of the FAD versus the current body blocks. Commenters also suggested checking the completeness of the drawing package (e.g., tolerances, indicating where forces should be applied) and requested 3-D data for the FADs.

    b. Harmonization

    Harmonization with other countries was also a reason some commenters gave for not supporting the use of the FAD. They argued that the use of the FAD would require additional testing on their part and would increase test costs. Several commenters suggested initiating a Global Technical Regulation to facilitate global harmonization.

    c. Proposed Test Procedure

    Several commenters raised questions or concerns regarding the proposed test procedure for the FADs. For example, there were requests for clarification on: Contact between adjacent FADs and the vehicle interior at pre-load and during the test; the belt slack procedure; the test position for an adjustable turning loop; the seating procedure when the seat centerline is not aligned with the seating reference point; and where exactly the forces need to be applied on the FAD. Commenters also suggested reducing the hold time requirement for the required load. Questions were also raised surrounding the proposed procedure for determining when to replace a FAD1 with a FAD2, and some suggestions were made on this procedure that pertain to only buses. Commenters also questioned the appropriateness of testing side-facing seats with the FADs and requested clarification on the associated pull direction. Additional suggestions were made regarding the proposed test procedure that include the use of a dedicated test belt and the use of a booster seat for the FAD2 based on its shoulder height.

    d. Cost and Lead Time

    Cost burden and lead time were major sources of concern, particularly for the medium to heavy-duty vehicle industry. Commenters argued that the cost of acquiring the FADs was underestimated. Commenters also stated that they would have to conduct tests to verify that the use of the FAD does not affect the compliance of their vehicles with the FMVSS No. 210 requirements, and if in fact it did affect the performance, they would incur redesign and certification costs. In addition, commenters stated that not harmonizing with the requirements of other countries would also drive up test costs. They suggest these costs far outweigh any cost savings attributed to the ease of use of the FADs. Some suggestions to reduce the burden of the proposal were to make the FAD an optional test device, or allow testing with the current body blocks for vehicles that are certified by their use and only require the use of the FAD when the vehicle undergoes recertification. Others suggested extending the lead time for any changeover to the FAD, and delaying the use of the FAD until it is a globally harmonized test device.

    III. Alternative Strategy Under Consideration—Maintaining the Body Blocks and Refining the Test Procedure

    The FAD was developed in order to, among other things, provide a consistent test configuration and load path to the seat belt assembly anchorages without affecting the stringency of the testing. Given the comments received on the NPRM, the agency has decided to evaluate the feasibility of maintaining the current body blocks and refining the test procedure such that the standard provides sufficient information about the pre-test positioning of the body blocks so that manufacturers are informed of the range of positions that may be tested to determine compliance.

    We emphasize that although the agency is considering the option of retaining the body blocks and refining the FMVSS No. 210 test procedure, the agency is still considering replacing the body blocks with the FAD, as proposed in the March 2012 NPRM, or possibly incorporating the FAD as an optional testing tool. The comments received in response to this SNPRM, along with the comments already received in response to the NPRM, as well as the results of the agency's ongoing research and development, will inform the agency's final decision.

    a. Preliminary Zone Concept for Placement of the Body Blocks

    The agency is considering specifying zones within which the body blocks would be placed for testing purposes, as it has already done in FMVSS No. 222, “School bus passenger seating and crash protection.” (See final rule upgrading FMVSS No. 222, 73 FR 62744, October 21, 2008.) As part of the 2008 upgrade to FMVSS No. 222, the agency adopted a positioning procedure for the torso body block used in the quasi-static test for lap/shoulder seat belts on school buses. The procedure establishes a zone in which the body block must be located. Specifically, after the pre-load application is complete, the origin of the torso body block radius 6 at any point across the torso body block thickness must lie within a zone defined by specified boundaries. The forward boundary of this zone is established by a transverse vertical plane of the vehicle located 100 mm longitudinally forward of the seating reference point. The upper and lower boundaries of the zone are 75 mm above and below the horizontal plane located midway between the horizontal plane passing through the school bus torso belt adjusted height (specified in S3 of FMVSS No. 210), and the horizontal plane 100 mm below the seating reference point.

    6 The phrase “origin of the torso body block radius” is used in FMVSS No. 222. The phrase refers to the center of the flat edge of the torso body block.

    The agency is considering the possibility of utilizing zones such as the above for the initial placement of the current body blocks for FMVSS No. 210 compliance testing. Separate zones may be established for the torso and pelvic body blocks. By refining the current test procedure to include these zones, NHTSA intends for the standard to be clearer as to how the agency will position the current body blocks. The agency does not intend to increase the stringency of the standard per se.

    b. Planned Research To Evaluate Alternative Strategy

    The agency has initiated research to aid in the development of the zones bounding the initial placement for the current body blocks. The research will evaluate the zone concept across different vehicle types and seat configurations and establish the appropriate zone boundaries to ensure that it is feasible and practicable for all vehicles. This research will involve a range of seat and vehicle types including heavy vehicles. The research is expected to be completed in the winter of 2015.

    IV. Request for Public Comments on Alternative Strategy

    To assist the agency in evaluating whether and how to amend the current test procedure in order to maintain the use of the body blocks, NHTSA invites comments on the zone concept that is under consideration, as well as other possible solutions. Specifically, we request comments on, but not limited to, how the zones should be established in the vehicle environment, how to verify that the body blocks are within the specified zones under pre-load in the vehicle environment, and any make/model-specific issues that would impact the implementation of the proposed body block positioning procedure for all vehicles that must meet FMVSS No. 210. NHTSA encourages commenters to provide specific information or views on this matter and requests that the rationale for the comments be specific and supported by data, including any relevant analyses. While we do not intend to preclude commenters from identifying potential alternative solutions, we ask that the commenters' recommendations be consistent with the existing standard requirements and test procedure.

    V. Public Participation How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.

    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.

    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by logging into http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.

    How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you wish DOT's Docket Management Facility to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, the Docket Management Facility will return the postcard by mail.

    How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

    Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments received after that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

    How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments at DOT's Docket Management Facility at the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the facility are indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the docket for new material.

    VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices a. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” The rulemaking action has also been determined to be not significant under the Department's regulatory policies and procedures.

    The cost impact of using the current FMVSS No. 210 body blocks would be minimal to nonexistent, since the status quo would basically be maintained.7 The agency might develop procedures for installing and positioning the existing body blocks, but NHTSA does not believe that there would be significant incremental costs associated with using the procedures to test for compliance with FMVSS No. 210.

    7 The estimated impact of the proposal to adopt the FAD was discussed in the preamble to the March 30, 2012 NPRM (77 FR at 19159).

    b. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed and final rules on small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions. I hereby certify that the approach considered by this SNPRM would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    The Small Business Administration's (SBA's) size standard regulation at 13 CFR part 121, “Small business size regulations,” prescribes small business size standards by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. NAICS code 336111, Automobile Manufacturing prescribes a small business size standard of 1,000 or fewer employees. NAICS code 336399, All Other Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing, prescribes a small business size standard of 750 or fewer employees. Although the majority of motor vehicle manufacturers would not qualify as a small business, there are a number of vehicle manufacturers that are small businesses. This SNPRM would not have a significant economic impact on these small businesses because the approach considered by this document would basically adopt the status quo used in FMVSS No. 210. The agency might develop procedures for installing and positioning the existing body blocks, but NHTSA does not believe that there would be significant incremental costs associated with using the procedures to test for compliance with FMVSS No. 210.

    Small organizations and small governmental units would not be significantly affected by this SNPRM since the potential cost impacts associated with this action would not significantly affect the price of new motor vehicles. The cost impact of using the current FMVSS No. 210 body blocks is minimal to nonexistent, since the status quo would basically be maintained.

    c. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's SNPRM pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposed rule would 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.”

    NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance.

    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a savings clause under which “[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law.” 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express preemption provision are generally preserved.

    However, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer, notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist—for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard—the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).

    Pursuant to Executive Orders 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered whether this proposed rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.

    To this end, the agency has examined the nature and objectives of today's proposed rule and finds that this proposed rule, like many NHTSA rules, would prescribe only a minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this proposed rule would preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by today's proposed rule. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the minimum standard proposed here. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.

    d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation, with base year of 1995). UMRA also requires an agency issuing a final rule subject to the Act to select the “least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.” If made final, this proposed rule would not result in a Federal mandate that would likely result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation, with base year of 1995).

    e. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

    f. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.

    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive effect of this proposed rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.

    g. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    Under the PRA of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. In this notice of proposed rulemaking, we are not proposing any “collections of information” (as defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(c)).

    h. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International. The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

    The agency identified an ISO technical report (TR 1417-1974) and an SAE International standard (J384, Rev. JUN94) that have testing recommendations for vehicle seat belt anchorages. Both recommend the use of body blocks, similar to those currently specified in FMVSS No. 210, for applying the required test loads. The alternative strategy the agency is now considering in this SNPRM would continue the use of the FMVSS No. 210 body blocks. Accordingly, the alternative strategy employing the current body blocks is consistent with the ISO report and SAE standard. However, NHTSA has tentatively determined that the ISO report and SAE standard, among other matters, do not specify the positioning of the body blocks referenced in both with sufficient specificity to achieve the goals of this rulemaking. Thus, NHTSA has decided to base this SNPRM on the existing FMVSS No. 210 body blocks rather than explore using new ones, and to develop possible test procedures that make clear how the body blocks are to be positioned during FMVSS No. 210 compliance testing.

    Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

    Raymond R. Posten, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04162 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
    80 40 Monday, March 2, 2015 Notices AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Renewal of Charter of the USAID Board for International Food and Agricultural Development AGENCY:

    United States Agency for International Development.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of the renewal of the Charter of the USAID Board for International Food and Agricultural Development.

    DATES:

    The Charter is being renewed for two years effective from the date of filing on February 26, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Owens, 202-712-0218.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Committee

    The USAID Board for International Food and Agricultural Development brings together representatives of U.S. Land Grant institutions, other U.S. institutions of higher education, non-profit and private industry to advise upon USAID engagement with higher education institutions and partners in addressing issues related to global hunger and poverty.

    Dated: February 24, 2015. Christa White, Committee Management Officer. Charter for the Board for International Food and Agricultural Development

    Article I. Committee's Official Designation (Title): Board for International Food and Agricultural Development (henceforth referred to as the “Board”).

    Article II. Authority: Establishment of the Board is mandated by Section 298 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Pub. L. 87-195), as amended.

    Article III. Objectives and Scope of Activities: The Board's mission is to assist the U.S. Agency for International Development in the administration of programs authorized by Section 297 of Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (Pub. L. 87-195). Its general areas of responsibilities include participating in the planning, development, and implementation of, initiating recommendations for, and monitoring Title XII activities as described in Section 297.

    Article IV. Description of Duties: The Board's duties include but are not limited to:

    • Participating in the formulation of basic policy, procedures, and criteria for proposed project review, selection, and monitoring;

    • recommending which developing nations could benefit from programs carried out under Title XII, and identifying those nations which have an interest in establishing or developing agricultural institutions;

    • assessing the impact of programs carried out under Title XII in solving agricultural problems and natural resource issues in developing nations;

    • developing information exchanges and consulting regularly with NGOs, consumer groups, agribusinesses and associations, agricultural cooperatives and commodity groups, state departments of agriculture, state agricultural research and extension agencies, and academic institutions;

    • investigating and resolving issues concerning the implementation of Title XII as requested by universities; and

    • advising the Administrator on any and all issues as requested.

    Article V. Agency or Official to Whom the Committee Reports: The Board shall report to the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

    Article VI. Support: The Bureau for Food Security is responsible for financial and administrative support of the Board and its subordinate units.

    Article VII. Estimated Annual Operating Costs and Staff Years: The estimated annual operating and administrative support cost (subject to the availability of funds) for BIFAD is approximately $733,000, which includes 2.5 full-time equivalent staff members and program support for meetings and studies conducted by the Board.

    Article VIII. Designated Federal Officer: A senior member of the Bureau for Food Security (BFS) serves full time as Executive Director of BIFAD (BFS/HICD-BIFAD) and is also the Designated Federal Officer.

    Article IX. Estimated Number and Frequency of Meetings: The Board estimates that it will meet in public session at least two times per year (1st and 3rd quarters of the fiscal year). The Board may meet in executive session for planning sessions to discuss Title XII program activities and issues during the year.

    Article X. Duration: The Board is authorized by statute as a permanent Board and hence, is continuing in its duration.

    Article XI. Termination: Section 298 of Title XII provides for a permanent Board.

    Article XII. Membership and Designation: The Board shall consist of seven members appointed by the President, no less than four to be selected from the universities as defined by Section 296(d) of Title XII. The members selected from the universities will serve in a representative, not an individual, capacity. Terms of members shall be established by the President at the time of appointment, as provided by Section 298(a) of Title XII.

    Article XIII. Subcommittees: Board subordinate units are authorized as necessary for the performance of the Board's duties and the discharge of its responsibilities. All reporting, advice and work products of the Board subordinate units should be made through the Board.

    The USAID Bureau for Food Security will provide support services to the Board and its subordinate units as appropriate through the HICD-BIFAD Division.

    Article XIV. Recordkeeping: Records are available subject to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, and other applicable laws and regulations.

    Article XV. Filing Date: February 26, 2015.

    [FR Doc. 2015-04276 Filed 2-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Notice of the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Subtropical Agricultural Research Station Land Transfer AGENCY:

    Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to evaluate the proposed transfer of approximately 3,800 acres of land at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Subtropical Agricultural Research Station (STARS) in Brooksville, Florida to Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU). This notice is announcing the opening of a 30-day public comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit written comments related to the STARS Land Transfer to Cal Mather, Environmental Protection Specialist, USDA-ARS-SHEMB, by any of the following methods: Mail: NCAUR, 1815 North University Street, Room 2060, Peoria, Illinois 61604; FAX: 309-681-6682; or email: [email protected]

    Hard copies of the Draft EA are available upon request. Copies of the Draft EA for the USDA-ARS STARS Land Transfer are also available for public viewing during normal business hours at the following locations:

    • Samuel H. Coleman Memorial Library (FAMU), 525 Orr Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32307 • Istachatta Library Station, 16246 Lingle Road, Brooksville, Florida 34601 • East Hernando Branch Library, 6457 Windmere Road, Brooksville, Florida 34602 • Spring Hill Branch Library, 9220 Spring Hill Drive, Spring Hill, Florida 34608 • West Hernando Branch Library, 6335 Blackbird Avenue, Brooksville, Florida 34613 • Main Library/Brooksville, 238 Howell Avenue, Brooksville, Florida 34601
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The USDA is proposing to transfer approximately 3,800 acres of land and facilities located on four separate properties at the USDA-ARS STARS in Brooksville, Florida to FAMU. In accordance with the March 1, 2014, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed between the U.S. Government, represented by the Secretary of Agriculture, and the University Board of Trustees, upon transfer to FAMU, the land will be used for agricultural and natural resources research for a period of no less than 25 years, supporting the 1890 land grant university mission, promoting education and community collaboration, and establishing a Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Program at the Property. FAMU would assume responsibility for management and maintenance of the constructed facilities and land to be conveyed from USDA-ARS.

    The USDA-ARS STARS was closed in accordance with Public Law (Pub. L.) 112-55, Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012. The proposed transfer of land and facilities from USDA-ARS to FAMU would be in accordance with Section 732 of Public Law 112-55, as extended under Public Law 113-76, 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which authorizes the Secretary to convey, with or without consideration, certain USDA-ARS facilities to entities that are eligible to receive real property, including: Land-grant colleges and universities (as defined in Section 1404(13) of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977); 1994 Institutions (as defined in Section 532 of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994); and Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities (as defined in Section 1404(10) of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977). Under Public Law 113-76, the conveyance authority expires on September 30, 2015, and all conveyances must be completed by that date.

    Two alternatives are analyzed in the Draft EA, the Proposed Action Alternative and the No Action Alternative. The Draft EA addresses potential impacts of these alternatives on the natural and human environment.

    • Alternative 1—Proposed Action. Under the proposed action alternative, the Secretary would transfer the USDA-ARS land and facilities to FAMU, and FAMU, its tenant(s), and/or its partner(s) would implement the Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions described in the Draft EA upon transfer of the land and facilities. The land would be used for agricultural and natural resources research for a period of no less than 25 years.

    • Alternative 2—No Action. Under the no action alternative, the USDA-ARS land and facilities would not be transferred to FAMU. Under the no action alternative, USDA-ARS would have no resources to operate and/or maintain the properties and the properties would fall into a state of disrepair.

    In addition, one alternative was considered in the Draft EA but eliminated from detailed study. In this alternative, USDA-ARS would retain possession of the land and it would be transferred to the General Services Administration for disposal. Since it cannot reasonably be determined who would ultimately take possession of the property and how it would be utilized, it was not analyzed in detail in the EA. The USDA-ARS will use and coordinate the NEPA commenting process to satisfy the public involvement process for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470(f) as provided for in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3)). Following the public comment period, comments will be used to prepare the Final EA. The USDA-ARS will respond to each substantive comment by making appropriate revisions to the document or by explaining why a comment did not warrant a change. A Notice of Availability of the Final EA will be published in the Federal Register. All comments, including any personal identifying information included in the comment will become a matter of public record. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: February 18, 2015. Chavonda Jacobs-Young, Administrator, Agricultural Research Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04302 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-78-2014] Foreign-Trade Subzone 83D—Decatur, Alabama; Authorization of Production Activity; General Electric Company (Household Refrigerators)

    On October 22, 2014, the Huntsville-Madison County Airport Authority, grantee of FTZ 83, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on behalf of General Electric Company, within Subzone 83D, in Decatur, Alabama.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (79 FR 65616, November 5, 2014). The FTZ Board has determined that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification is authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.

    Dated: February 25, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04344 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-12-2015] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 74—Baltimore, Maryland; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Mercedes Benz USA, LLC; (Accessorizing Motor Vehicles); Baltimore, Maryland

    The City of Baltimore, grantee of FTZ 74, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Mercedes Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA), located in Baltimore, Maryland. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on February 18, 2015.

    The MBUSA facility is located within Site 6 of FTZ 74. The facility is used for accessorizing passenger motor vehicles. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt MBUSA from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, MBUSA would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to passenger motor vehicles (duty rate 2.5%) for the foreign status components noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.

    The components sourced from abroad include: Plastic door sills and strips; wheel rim locks; metal door sills and strips; memory cards; navigation systems and related parts; entertainment systems; wiring sets and harnesses; storage compartments; spoilers; and, cup holders (duty rate ranges from free to 5%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 13, 2015.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Pierre Duy at [email protected] or (202) 482-1378.

    Dated: February 23, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04343 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-13-2015] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 144—Brunswick, Georgia; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Mercedes Benz USA, LLC (Accessorizing Motor Vehicles); Brunswick, Georgia

    The Brunswick and Glynn County Development Authority, grantee of FTZ 144, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Mercedes Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA), located in Brunswick, Georgia. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on February 18, 2015.

    The MBUSA facility is located within Site 2 of FTZ 144. The facility is used for accessorizing passenger motor vehicles. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt MBUSA from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, MBUSA would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to passenger motor vehicles (duty rate 2.5%) for the foreign status components noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.

    The components sourced from abroad include: Plastic door sills and strips; wheel rim locks; metal door sills and strips; memory cards; navigation systems and related parts; entertainment systems; wiring sets and harnesses; storage compartments; spoilers; and, cup holders (duty rate ranges from free to 5%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 13, 2015.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Pierre Duy at [email protected] or (202) 482-1378.

    Dated: February 23, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04342 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Licensing Responsibilities and Enforcement AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, 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 proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before May 1, 2015.

    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 Mark Crace, (202) 482-8093, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This collection of information involves nine miscellaneous activities described in section 758 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) that are associated with the export of items controlled by the Department of Commerce. Most of these activities do not involve submission of documents to BIS but instead involve exchange of documents among parties in the export transaction to insure that each party understands its obligations under U.S. law. Others involve writing certain export control statements on shipping documents or reporting unforeseen changes in shipping and disposition of exported commodities. These activities are needed by the BIS's Office of Export Enforcement and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to document export transactions, enforce the EAR and protect the National Security of the United States.

    II. Method of Collection

    Submitted electronically or on paper.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0694-0122.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 5.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 78,576.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

    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: February 25, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04262 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Request for the Appointment of a Technical Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before May 1, 2015.

    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 Mark Crace, (202) 482-8093, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    This collection of information is required by the Export Administration Regulations and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) were established to advise and assist the U.S. Government on export control matters such as proposed revisions to export control lists, licensing procedures, assessments of the foreign availability of controlled products, and export control regulations. Under this collection, interested parties may submit a request to BIS to establish a new TAC. The Bureau of Industry and Security provides administrative support for these Committees.

    II. Method of Collection

    Submitted electronically or on paper.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0694-0100.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1.

    Estimated Time per Response: 5 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

    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: February 25, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04233 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Request for Investigation Under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before May 1, 2015.

    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 Mark Crace, (202) 482-8093, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    Upon request, BIS will initiate an investigation to determine the effects of imports of specific commodities on the national security, and will make the findings known to the President for possible adjustments to imports through tariffs. The findings are made publicly available and are reported to Congress. The purpose of this collection is to account for the public burden associated with the surveys distributed to determine the impact on national security.

    II. Method of Collection

    Submitted electronically or on paper.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0694-0120.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 400.

    Estimated Time per Response: 7 hours and 30 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,000.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

    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: February 25, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04260 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Miscellaneous Short Supply Activities AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before May 1, 2015.

    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 Mark Crace, (202) 482-8093, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    This information collection is comprised of two rarely used short supply activities: “Registration of U.S. Agricultural Commodities for Exemption From Short Supply Limitations on Export” (USAG), and “Petitions for the Imposition of Monitoring or Controls on Recyclable Metallic Materials (Petitions); Public Hearings.” These activities are statutory in nature and, therefore, must remain a part of BIS's active information collections.

    II. Method of Collection

    Submitted electronically or on paper.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0694-0102.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2.

    Estimated Time per Response: USAG, 30 minutes; and Petitions, 100 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

    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: February 25, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04259 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Statement by Ultimate Consignee and Purchaser AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, 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 proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before May 1, 2015.

    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 Mark Crace, (202) 482-8093, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This collection of information is necessary under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The EAR states that the Form BIS-711, or a statement on company letterhead, is required for exports to certain countries. These documents provide information on the foreign importer receiving the U.S. technology and how the technology will be utilized. The BIS-711 or letter provides assurances from the importer that the technology will not be misused, transferred or reexported in violation of the EAR. A copy of the statement must be submitted with the license application if the country of ultimate destination is listed in certain country groups of Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR. The Form BIS-711 or letter puts the importer on notice of the special nature of the goods proposed for export and conveys a commitment against illegal disposition. In order to effectively control commodities, BIS must have sufficient information regarding the end-use and end-user of the U.S. origin commodities to be exported. The information will assist the licensing officer in making the proper decision on whether to approve or reject the application for the license.

    II. Method of Collection

    Submitted electronically or on paper.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0694-0021.

    Form Number: BIS-711.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 286.

    Estimated Time per Response: 16 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 76.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

    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: February 25, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04263 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security President's Export Council Subcommittee on Export Administration; Notice of Meeting

    The President's Export Council Subcommittee on Export Administration (PECSEA) will meet on March 19, 2015, 10:00 a.m., at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues NW., Washington, DC The PECSEA provides advice on matters pertinent to those portions of the Export Administration Act, as amended, that deal with United States policies of encouraging trade with all countries with which the United States has diplomatic or trading relations and of controlling trade for national security and foreign policy reasons.

    Agenda

    1. Opening remarks by the Chairman and Vice Chairman.

    2. Export Control Reform Update.

    3. Presentation of Papers or Comments by the Public.

    4. Data Transmission and Security Subcommittee Presentation.

    5 Process Improvements and Trusted Trader Subcommittee Presentation.

    6. Outreach Subcommittee Update.

    7. Impact of ECR on BIS and State Licensing and Exports.

    8. Sustaining Exporter Engagement in an Integrated List Review Process.

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected], no later than, March 12, 2015.

    A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the PECSEA. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to PECSEA members, the PECSEA suggests that public presentation materials or comments be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected].

    For more information, contact Yvette Springer on 202-482-2813.

    Dated: February 25, 2015. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04285 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-824] Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) published its preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET Film) from India on August 25, 2014.1 The period of review is July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013. This review covers respondents Jindal Poly Films Limited (Jindal) and SRF Limited (SRF). For the final results, we continue to find that Jindal did, and that SRF did not, make sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value.

    1See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 50620 (August 25, 2014) (Preliminary Results).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: March 2, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Myrna Lobo, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2371.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On August 25, 2014, the Department published the Preliminary Results. We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. Jindal submitted a case brief on October 1, 2014. SRF submitted a letter in lieu of a case brief on the same day, stating that it agrees with the Preliminary Results.

    On September 5, 2014, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Jindal,2 and received a response from Jindal on September 12, 2014.3

    2See Department letter to Jindal, “2012-2013 Administrative Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Film Sheet and Strip from India, Second Supplemental Questionnaire,” dated September 5, 2014.

    3See Letter from Jindal Poly Films Ltd., “Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from India/Antidumping Duty/Jindal Poly Films Ltd./Response to Second Supplemental Questionnaire,” dated September 12, 2014.

    On November 18, 2014, the Department extended the deadline for issuance of these final results from December 23, 2014 to February 23, 2015.4

    4See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Operations, “Polyethylene Terphthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from India: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review—2012-2013” (November 18, 2014).

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the AD order are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed PET Film, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET Film are currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00.90. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the antidumping duty order is dispositive.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case brief are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of issues raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).5 ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://trade.gov/enforcement/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    5 On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and Compliance changed the name of Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”) to ACCESS. The Web site location was changed from http://iaaccess.trade.gov to http://access.trade.gov. The Final Rule changing the references to the Regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014).

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we have made no changes to SRF's or Jindal's calculations. However, both SRF's and Jindal's final rate in the companion countervailing duty administrative review has changed since the preliminary results of that review.6 Since the changes in the countervailing duty rates are partially attributable to changes in their export subsidies, we have adjusted SRF's and Jindal's reported U.S. prices and, accordingly, recalculated the weighted-average dumping margins for Jindal and SRF for these final results.7

    6See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India: Preliminary Results and Partial Recission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reivew; 2012, 79 FR 50616, 50617 (August 25, 2014).

    7See Memoranda to Thomas Gilgunn, Program Manager “Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: Jindal Poly Films Limited, and “Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: SRF Limited,” both dated concurrently with these final results.

    Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013.

    Producer or exporter Weighted-
  • average dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Jindal Poly Films Limited 1.89 SRF Limited 0.00
    Assessment Rates

    The Department determines, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of merchandise produced and/or exported by Jindal and SRF. The Department will issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. Where a respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), the Department will calculate importer-specific assessment rates. Where the respondent reported the entered value for its sales, we calculated importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales.8 However, where the respondent did not report the entered value for its sales, we will calculate importer-specific per-unit duty assessment rates. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review where the actual or estimated ad valorem assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is not zero or de minimis. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is zero or de minimis. 9

    8See 19 CFR 351.212(b).

    9See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of PET Film from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the company under review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, then the cash deposit rate will be zero); (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the completed segment for the most recent period for that company; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the completed segment for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any other completed segment of this proceeding, then the cash deposit rate will be the all others rate for this proceeding, 5.71 percent. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notifications to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under 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.

    The Department is issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 22, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I. Summary II. Background Scope of the Order III. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Quantity Discount Adjustment Comment 2: Consideration of an Alternative Comparison Method in Administrative Reviews Comment 3: Differential Pricing Analysis
    [FR Doc. 2015-04273 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.

    Background

    Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.

    All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.

    Respondent Selection

    In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Therefore, we encourage all parties interested in commenting on respondent selection to submit their APO applications on the date of publication of the initiation notice, or as soon thereafter as possible. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record of the review.

    In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

    In general, the Department finds that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, the Department will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of this review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding (i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to this review, if the Department determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, the Department will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, the Department will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Quantity and Value Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where the Department considered collapsing that entity, complete quantity and value data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

    Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that requests a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that, with regard to reviews requested on the basis of anniversary months on or after March 2015, the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    The Department is providing this notice on its Web site, as well as in its “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” notices, so that interested parties will be aware of the manner in which the Department intends to exercise its discretion in the future.

    Opportunity to Request a Review: Not later than the last day of March 2015,1 interested parties may request administrative review of the following orders, findings, or suspended investigations, with anniversary dates in March for the following periods:

    1 Or the next business day, if the deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday or any other day when the Department is closed.

    Period of review Antidumping Duty Proceedings Canada: Iron Construction Castings, A-122-503 3/1/14-2/28/15 France: Brass Sheet & Strip, A-427-602 3/1/14-2/28/15 Germany: Brass Sheet & Strip, A-428-602 3/1/14-2/28/15 India: Sulfanilic Acid, A-533-806 3/1/14-2/28/15 Italy: Brass Sheet & Strip, A-475-601 3/1/14-2/28/15 Russia: Silicon Metal, A-821-817 3/1/14-2/28/15 Spain: Stainless Steel Bar, A-469-805 3/1/14-2/28/15 Taiwan: Light-Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube, A-583-803 3/1/14-2/28/15 Thailand: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes, A-549-502 3/1/14-2/28/15 The People's Republic of China: Chloropicrin, A-570-002 3/1/14-2/28/15 Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe, A-570-930 3/1/14-2/28/15 Glycine, A-570-836 3/1/14-2/28/15 Sodium Hexametaphosphate, A-570-908 3/1/14-2/28/15 Tissue Paper Products, A-570-894 3/1/14-2/28/15 Countervailing Duty Proceedings India: Sulfanilic Acid, C-533-807 1/1/14-12/31/14 Iran: In-Shell Pistachio Nuts, C-507-501 1/1/14-12/31/14 The People's Republic of China: Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe, C-570-931 1/1/14-12/31/14 Turkey: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes, C-489-502 1/1/14-12/31/14 Suspension Agreements Mexico: Fresh Tomatoes, A-201-820 3/1/14-2/28/15

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review. In addition, a domestic interested party or an interested party described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which was produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.

    Note that, for any party the Department was unable to locate in prior segments, the Department will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).

    As explained in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), and Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) the Department clarified its practice with respect to the collection of final antidumping duties on imports of merchandise where intermediate firms are involved. The public should be aware of this clarification in determining whether to request an administrative review of merchandise subject to antidumping findings and orders.2

    2See also the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at http://trade.gov/enforcement/.

    Further, as explained in Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013), the Department clarified its practice with regard to the conditional review of the non-market economy (NME) entity in administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders. The Department will no longer consider the NME entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews. Accordingly, the NME entity will not be under review unless the Department specifically receives a request for, or self-initiates, a review of the NME entity.3 In administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders on merchandise from NME countries where a review of the NME entity has not been initiated, but where an individual exporter for which a review was initiated does not qualify for a separate rate, the Department will issue a final decision indicating that the company in question is part of the NME entity. However, in that situation, because no review of the NME entity was conducted, the NME entity's entries were not subject to the review and the rate for the NME entity is not subject to change as a result of that review (although the rate for the individual exporter may change as a function of the finding that the exporter is part of the NME entity).

    3 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), parties should specify that they are requesting a review of entries from exporters comprising the entity, and to the extent possible, include the names of such exporters in their request.

    Following initiation of an antidumping administrative review when there is no review requested of the NME entity, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries for all exporters not named in the initiation notice, including those that were suspended at the NME entity rate.

    All requests must be filed electronically in Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”) on Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS Web site at http://access.trade.gov. 4 Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(l)(i), a copy of each request must be served on the petitioner and each exporter or producer specified in the request.

    4See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of “Initiation of Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation” for requests received by the last day of March 2015. If the Department does not receive, by the last day of March 2015, a request for review of entries covered by an order, finding, or suspended investigation listed in this notice and for the period identified above, the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping or countervailing duties on those entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or bond for) estimated antidumping or countervailing duties required on those entries at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption and to continue to collect the cash deposit previously ordered.

    For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.

    This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

    Dated: February 23, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04275 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-533-825] Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2012 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On August 25, 2014, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from India.1 The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012. Based on an analysis of the comments received, the Department has made changes to the subsidy rate determined for Jindal Poly Films Limited (Jindal) and SRF Limited (SRF). The final subsidy rates are listed in the “Final Results of Administrative Review” section below.

    1See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From India: Preliminary Results And Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2012, 79 FR 50616 (August 25, 2014) (Preliminary Results 2012).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: March 2, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elfi Blum, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0197.

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET film are classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00.90. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    The issues raised by Jindal and SRF in their case briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 The issues are identified in the Appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).3 ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://trade.gov/enforcement/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    2See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET film) from India; 2012,” dated concurrently with this notice and herein incorporated by reference (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    3 On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and Compliance changed the name of Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”) to ACCESS. The Web site location was changed from http://iaaccess.trade.gov to http://access.trade.gov. The Final Rule changing the references to the Regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014).

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on the comments received from Jindal, SRF, and domestic interested parties Polyplex USA LLC and Flex USA, we made the following changes to our rate calculations for Jindal and SRF: We adjusted the cash deposit rates for Jindal and SRF, as necessary, to exclude the foreign currency denominated pre- and post-export financing benefits. Further, we revised our allocation calculations and adjusted the numerator in our subsidy rate calulations for Jindal with respect to the Status Holder Incentive Scheme (SHIS). For a discussion of these issues, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Results of Administrative Review

    In accordance with section 777A(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated individual ad valorem subsidy rates for Jindal and SRF, for the POR for this administrative review.

    Manufacturer/exporter Subsidy
  • rate
  • (percent)
  • Jindal Poly Films Limited 7.66 SRF Limited 2.03
    Assessment and Cash Deposit Requirements

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), the Department intends to issue appropriate instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after publication of the final results of this review. The Department will instruct CBP to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Jindal and SRF, respectively, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012, at 7.66 percent ad valorem and at 2.03 percent ad valorem, respectively, of the entered value.

    The Department intends also to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the rate of 7.66 percent ad valorem for Jindal and of 2.03 4 percent ad valorem for SRF of the entered value on shipments of the subject merchandise produced and exported by SRF, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. We intend to instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the applicable company-specific countervailing duty rate for the most recent period or the all-others rate established in the investigation. These cash deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    4 These rates reflect the cash-deposit rates adjusted for the termination of the pre- and post-shipment export financing program in foreign currency. See 19 CFR 351.526(a).

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 23, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background Scope of the Order III. Subsidies Valuation Information A. Allocation Period B. Benchmarks Interest Rates C. Denominator IV. Analysis of Programs 1. Programs Determined To Be Countervailable 2. Program Determined To Be Terminated 3. Programs Determined To Be Not Used V. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Whether There Has Been A Program-Wide Change for Pre-Shipment Export Financing in Foreign Currency and Adjustment of the Cash Deposit Rate. Comment 2: Whether The Department Wrongly Countervailed Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS) Benefits That Apply To Non-Subject Merchandise. Comment 3: Whether the Department Used The Wrong Numerator To Calculate The POR Benefit For The Status Holder Incentive Scheme (SHIS). Comment 4: Whether The Department Made An Error In Calculating The POR Benefit for the SHIS. Comment 5: Whether The Value Added Tax (VAT) And Central Sales Tax (CST) Refunds Under The Industrial Promotion Subsidy (IPS) Of The State Government Of Maharashtra's (SGOM) Package Scheme Of Incentives (PSI) Is Countervailable.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04274 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is automatically initiating the five-year review (“Sunset Review”) of the antidumping and countervailing duty (“AD/CVD”) orders listed below. The International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of Institution of Five-Year Review which covers the same orders.

    DATES:

    Effective (March 1, 2015).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Department official identified in the Initiation of Review section below at AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. For information from the Commission contact Mary Messer, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission at (202) 205-3193.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its Procedures for Conducting Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

    Initiation of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders:

    DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product Department contact A-337-804 731-TA-776 Chile Certain Preserved Mushrooms (3rd Review) David Goldberger (202) 482-4136. A-533-813 731-TA-778 India Certain Preserved Mushrooms (3rd Review) David Goldberger (202) 482-4136. A-560-802 731-TA-779 Indonesia Certain Preserved Mushrooms (3rd Review) David Goldberger (202) 482-4136. A-475-059 AA1921-167 Italy Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape (4th Review) David Goldberger (202) 482-4136. A-570-851 731-TA-777 PRC Certain Preserved Mushrooms (3rd Review) David Goldberger (202) 482-4136. A-570-891 731-TA-1059 PRC Hand Trucks (2nd Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith (202) 482-4136. Filing Information

    As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Department's regulations, the Department's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on the Department's Web site at the following address: “http://enforcement.trade.gov/sunset/.” All submissions in these Sunset Reviews must be filed in accordance with the Department's regulations regarding format, translation, and service of documents. These rules, including electronic filing requirements via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”), can be found at 19 CFR 351.303.1

    1See also Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    Revised Factual Information Requirements

    This notice serves as a reminder that any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.2 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives in all AD/CVD investigations or proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013.3 The formats for the revised certifications are provided at the end of the Final Rule. The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the revised certification requirements.

    2See section 782(b) of the Act.

    3See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (“Final Rule”) (amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)).

    On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two regulations related to antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (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 final rule 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. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013. Review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in this segment. To the extent that other regulations govern the submission of factual information in a segment (such as 19 CFR 351.218), these time limits will continue to be applied.

    Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation at 19 CFR 351.302(c) concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: Extension of Time Limits, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013). The modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under part 351 of the Department's regulations expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under part 351 expires. For submissions which 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, the Department 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, the Department 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. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013. Review the final rule, available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

    Letters of Appearance and Administrative Protective Orders

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the Department will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.

    Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (“APO”) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The Department's regulations on submission of proprietary information and eligibility to receive access to business proprietary information under APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304-306.

    Information Required From Interested Parties

    Domestic interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The required contents of the notice of intent to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the Department's regulations, if we do not receive a notice of intent to participate from at least one domestic interested party by the 15-day deadline, the Department will automatically revoke the order without further review.4

    4See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii).

    If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Department's regulations provide that all parties wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must file complete substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The required contents of a substantive response, on an order-specific basis, are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note that certain information requirements differ for respondent and domestic parties. Also, note that the Department's information requirements are distinct from the Commission's information requirements. Consult the Department's regulations for information regarding the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews. Consult the Department's regulations at 19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms and for other general information concerning antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at the Department.

    This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).

    Dated: February 23, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04300 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with January anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.

    DATES:

    Effective March 2, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with January anniversary dates.

    All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.

    Notice of No Sales

    If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (“POR”), it must notify the Department within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. All submissions must be filed electronically at http://access.trade.gov in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.1 Such submissions are subject to verification in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(i), a copy must be served on every party on the Department's service list.

    1See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    Respondent Selection

    In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the POR. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) to all parties having an APO within seven days of publication of this initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record of the applicable review. Rebuttal comments will be due five days after submission of initial comments.

    In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

    In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, the Department will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of this review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding (i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to this review, if the Department determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, the Department will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, the Department will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Quantity and Value (“Q&V”) Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where the Department considered collapsing that entity, complete Q&V data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

    Respondent Selection—Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the PRC

    In the event that the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination in the antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC, for the purposes of this segment of the proceeding, i.e., the 2014 review period, the Department intends to select respondents based on volume data contained in responses to a Q&V questionnaire. All parties are hereby notified that they must timely respond to the Q&V questionnaire. The Department's Q&V questionnaire along with the Separate Rate Application, Separate Rate Certification, and certain additional questions will be available in a document package on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/download/prc-wbf/ on the date this notice is published. The responses to the Q&V questionnaire should be filed with the respondents' Separate Rate Application or Separate Rate Certification and their response to the additional questions and must be received by the Department by no later than 30 days after publication of this notice. Please be advised that due to the time constraints imposed by the statutory and regulatory deadlines for antidumping duty administrative reviews, the Department does not intend to grant any extensions for the submission of responses to the Q&V questionnaire.

    Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.

    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). In accordance with the separate rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities.

    All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. In addition, all firms that wish to qualify for separate-rate status in the antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC must complete, as appropriate, either a separate-rate certification or application, as described below, and respond to the additional questions and the Q&V questionnaire which are included along with the separate-rate certification and application in a document package on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/download/prc-wbf/. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. For the antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC, the Separate Rate Certification form will be available at the Web site address noted above for the document package. In responding to the certification, please follow the “Instructions for Filing the Certification” in the Separate Rate Certification. Separate Rate Certifications are due to the Department no later than 30 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. For the antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC, Separate Rate Certifications, as well as a response to the Q&V questionnaire and the additional questions in the document package, are due to the Department no later than 30 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Certification applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers who purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

    Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding 2 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. In addition, companies that received a separate rate in a completed segment of the proceeding that have subsequently made changes, including, but not limited to, changes to corporate structure, acquisitions of new companies or facilities, or changes to their official company name,3 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. The Separate Rate Status Application will be available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. For the antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC, the Separate Rate Status Application will be available at the Web site address noted above for the document package. In responding to the Separate Rate Status Application, refer to the instructions contained in the application. Separate Rate Status Applications are due to the Department no later than 30 calendar days of publication of this Federal Register notice. For the antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC, Separate Rate Status Applications, as well as a response to the Q&V questionnaire and the additional questions in the document package, are due to the Department no later than 30 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate Status Application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

    2 Such entities include entities that have not participated in the proceeding, entities that were preliminarily granted a separate rate in any currently incomplete segment of the proceeding (e.g., an ongoing administrative review, new shipper review, etc.) and entities that lost their separate rate in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which they participated.

    3 Only changes to the official company name, rather than trade names, need to be addressed via a Separate Rate Application. Information regarding new trade names may be submitted via a Separate Rate Certification.

    For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.

    Furthermore, this notice constitutes public notification to all firms for which an antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture has been requested, and that are seeking separate rate status in the review, that they must submit a timely separate rate application or certification (as appropriate) as described above, and a timely response to the Q&V questionnaire and the additional questions in the document package on the Department's Web site in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. In other words, the Department will not give consideration to any timely separate rate certification or application made by parties who failed to respond in a timely manner to the Q&V questionnaire and the additional questions. All information submitted by respondents in the antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC is subject to verification. As noted above, the separate rate certification, the separate rate application, the Q&V questionnaire, and the additional questions will be available in a document package on the Department's Web site on the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Initiation of Reviews

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than January 31, 2016.

    Period of review Antidumping Duty Proceedings The People's Republic of China: Potassium Permanganate A-570-001 1/1/14-12/31/14 Pacific Accelerator Limited The People's Republic of China: Multilayered Wood Flooring 4 A-570-970 12/1/13-11/30/14 Dalian Dajen Wood Co., Ltd.5 Jiangsu Mingle Flooring Co., Ltd.6 Linyi Youyou Wood Co., Ltd.7 The People's Republic of China: Wooden Bedroom Furniture A-570-890 1/1/14-12/31/14 Art Heritage International, Ltd., Super Art Furniture Co., Ltd., Artwork Metal & Plastic Co., Ltd., Jibson Industries Ltd., Always Loyal International Baigou Crafts Factory Of Fengkai Balanza Co., Ltd. Best King International Ltd. Billionworth Enterprises Ltd. BNBM Co. Ltd. (aka Beijing New Materials Co., Ltd.) Brittomart Inc. C.F. Kent Co., Inc. C.F. Kent Hospitality, Inc. Changshu Htc Import & Export Co., Ltd. Cheng Meng Furniture (PTE) Ltd., Cheng Meng Decoration & Furniture (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. Chuan Fa Furniture Factory Classic Furniture Global Co., Ltd. Clearwise Co., Ltd. Dalian Guangming Furniture Co., Ltd. Dalian Huafeng Furniture Co., Ltd. Dalian Huafeng Furniture Group Co., Ltd. Decca Furniture Ltd. Der Cheng Furniture Co., Ltd. Der Cheng Wooden Works Of Factory Dongguan Bon Ten Furniture Co., Ltd. Dongguan Chengcheng Furniture Co., Ltd. Dongguan Dong He Furniture Co., Ltd. Dongguan Fortune Furniture Ltd. Dongguan Grand Style Furniture Co., Ltd. Dongguan Hung Sheng Artware Products Co., Ltd., Coronal Enterprise Co., Ltd. Dongguan Kingstone Furniture Co., Ltd., Kingstone Furniture Co., Ltd. Dongguan Lung Dong Furniture Co., Ltd. Dongguan Mingsheng Furniture Co., Ltd. Dongguan Mu Si Furniture Co., Ltd. Dongguan Nova Furniture Co., Ltd. Dongguan Singways Furniture Co., Ltd. Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd., Taicang Sunrise Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Taicang Fairmount Designs Furniture Co., Ltd., Meizhou Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd. Dongguan Sunshine Furniture Co., Ltd. Dongguan Yujia Furniture Co., Ltd. Dongying Huanghekou Furniture Industry Co., Ltd. Dorbest Ltd., Rui Feng Woodwork Co., Ltd. Aka Rui Feng Woodwork (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Rui Feng Lumber Development Co., Ltd. Aka Rui Feng Lumber Development (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. Dream Rooms Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. Eurosa (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., Eurosa Furniture Co., (Pte) Ltd. Fairmont Designs Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd. Fleetwood Fine Furniture LP Fortune Furniture Ltd. Fortune Glory Industrial Ltd. (H.K. Ltd.), Tradewinds Furniture Ltd. Fuijian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd. aka Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc. Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd. Golden Well International (HK) Ltd. Guangdong New Four Seas Furniture Manufacturing Ltd. Guangzhou Lucky Furniture Co., Ltd. Guangzhou Maria Yee Furnishings Ltd., Pyla HK Ltd., Maria Yee, Inc. Hainan Jong Bao Lumber Co., Ltd. Haining Kareno Furniture Co., Ltd. Hang Hai Woodcraft's Art Factory Hangzhou Cadman Trading Co., Ltd. Hong Kong Da Zhi Furniture Co., Ltd. Hualing Furniture (China) Co., Ltd., Tony House Manufacture (China) Co., Ltd., Buysell Investments Ltd., Tony House Industries Co., Ltd. Huasen Furniture Co., Ltd. Hung Fai Wood Products Factory Ltd. Jasonwood Industrial Co., Ltd. S.A. Jiangmen Kinwai Furniture Decoration Co., Ltd. Jiangmen Kinwai International Furniture Co., Ltd. Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd. Jiangsu Xiangsheng Bedtime Furniture Co., Ltd. Jiangsu Yuexing Furniture Group Co., Ltd. Jibbon Enterprise Co., Ltd. Jiedong Lehouse Furniture Co., Ltd. King Rich International, Ltd. King's Group Furniture (ENT) Co., Ltd. King's Way Furniture Industries Co., Ltd. Kingsyear Ltd. Kunshan Summit Furniture Co., Ltd. Leefu Wood (Dongguan) Co., Ltd. Nanhai Jiantai Woodwork Co., Ltd., Fortune Glory Industrial Ltd. (H.K. Ltd.). Nantong Wangzhuang Furniture Nantong Yangzi Furniture Co., Ltd. Nathan International Ltd., Nathan Rattan Factory Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. Passwell Corporation, Pleasant Wave Ltd. Perfect Line Furniture Co., Ltd. Prime Wood International Co., Ltd, Prime Best International Co., Ltd., Prime Best Factory, Liang Huang (Jiaxing) Enterprise Co., Ltd. Putian Jinggong Furniture Co., Ltd. Qingdao Beiyuan Shengli Furniture Co., Ltd., Qingdao Beiyuan Industry Trading Co., Ltd. Qingdao Liangmu Co., Ltd. Qingdao Shengchang Wooden Co., Ltd. Restonic (Dongguan) Furniture Ltd., Restonic Far East (Samoa) Ltd. Rizhao Sanmu Woodworking Co., Ltd. Sen Yeong International Co., Ltd., Sheh Hau International Trading Ltd. Shanghai Chengguan lmport & Export, Ltd. Shanghai Jian Pu Export & Import Co., Ltd. Shanghai Jiangfeng Furniture Shanghai Sinofound Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. Shanghai Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd. Shenyang Shining Dongxing Furniture Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Forest Furniture Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Jiafa High Grade Furniture Co., Ltd., Golden Lion International Trading Ltd. Shenzhen New Fudu Furniture Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Wonderful Furniture Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Xingli Furniture Co., Ltd. Shing Mark Enterprise Co., Ltd., Carven Industries Limited (BVI), Carven Industries Limited (HK), Dongguan Zhenxin Furniture Co., Ltd., Dongguan Yongpeng Furniture Co., Ltd. Songgang Jasonwood Furniture Factory Starwood Industries Ltd. Strongson Furniture (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Strongson Furniture Co., Ltd., Strongson (Hk) Co. Sunforce Furniture (Hui-Yang) Co., Ltd., Sun Fung Wooden Factory, Sun Fung Co., Shin Feng Furniture Co., Ltd., Stupendous International Co., Ltd. Superwood Co., Ltd., Lianjiang Zongyu Art Products Co., Ltd. Teamway Furniture (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd. Techniwood Industries Ltd., Ningbo Furniture Industries Ltd., Ningbo Hengrun Furniture Co., Ltd. Tianjin Phu Shing Woodwork Enterprise Co., Ltd. Tube-Smith Enterprise (Haimen) Co., Ltd. Tube-Smith Enterprise (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd. U-Rich Furniture (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd., U-Rich Furniture Ltd. Woodworth Wooden Industries (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd. Wuxi Yushea Furniture Co., Ltd. Xiamen Yongquan Sci-Tech Development Co., Ltd. Xilinmen Group Co., Ltd. Yeh Brothers World Trade Inc. Yichun Guangming Furniture Co., Ltd. Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd., Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd. Zhang Zhou Sanlong Wood Product Co., Ltd. Zhangjiagang Daye Hotel Furniture Co., Ltd. Zhangjiang Sunwin Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd. Zhangzhou Guohui Industrial & Trade Co., Ltd. Zhejiang Tianyi Scientific & Educational Equipment Co., Ltd. Zhong Shan Fullwin Furniture Co., Ltd. Zhong Shun Wood Art Co. Zhongshan Fookyik Furniture Co., Ltd. Zhongshan Golden King Furniture Industrial Co., Ltd. Zhoushan For-Strong Wood Co., Ltd. Countervailing Duty Proceedings The People's Republic of China: Multilayered Wood Flooring 8 C-570-971 1/1/13-12/13/13 Suspension Agreements None. Duty Absorption Reviews

    4 The deadline to withdraw a review request pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) continues to be 90 days from the publication of the initiation notice published on February 4, 2015 (80 FR 6041).

    5 This company was inadvertently omitted from the initiation notice that published on February 4, 2015 (80 FR 6041).

    6 The company name listed above inadvertently omitted (“Ltd.”) in the initiation notice that published on February 4, 2015 (80 FR 6041).

    7 The company name listed above inadvertently listed (“u”) at the end of the name in the initiation notice that published on February 4, 2015 (80 FR 6041).

    8 In the initiation notice that published on February 4, 2015 (80 FR 6041), the Department inadvertently included Zhejiang Layo Wood Industry Co., Ltd. in the initiation of the review of the countervailing duty order on Multilayered Wood Flooring from the PRC. We are not initiating a countervailing duty review with respect to Zhejiang Layo Wood Industry Co., Ltd., because this company was excluded for the countervailing duty order. See 76 FR 76693.

    During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with FAG Italia v. United States, 291 F.3d 806 (Fed Cir. 2002), as appropriate, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.

    Gap Period Liquidation

    For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.

    Administrative Protective Orders and Letters of Appearance

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders 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). Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of separate letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    Revised Factual Information Requirements

    On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two regulations related to antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (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 final rule 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. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in this segment.

    Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.9 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives. All segments of any antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 10 The Department intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

    9See section 782(b) of the Act.

    10See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (“Final Rule”); see also the frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013). The modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which 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. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning U.S. Customs and Border Protection data; and (5) quantity and value questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, the Department 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, the Department 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. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

    These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

    Dated: February 24, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04346 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset Reviews AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    Background

    Every five years, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct a review to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 of the Act would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury.

    Upcoming Sunset Reviews for April 2015

    The following Sunset Reviews are scheduled for initiation in April 2015 and will appear in that month's Notice of Initiation of Five-Year Sunset Review (“Sunset Review”). With respect to the orders on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia and Thailand, we have advanced the initiation date of these Sunset Reviews upon determining that initiation of the Sunset Reviews for all of the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags orders on the same date would promote administrative efficiency.

    Department contact Antidumping Duty Proceedings Chloropicrin from China (A-570-002) (4th Review) Charles Riggle, (202) 482-0650. Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from China (A-570-892) (2nd Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith, (202) 482-5255. Crepe Paper from China (A-570-895) (2nd Review) Charles Riggle, (202) 482-0650. Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China (A-570-886) (1st Review) David Goldberger, (202) 482-4136. Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India (A-533-838) (2nd Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith, (202) 482-5255. Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia (A-560-822) (1st Review) David Goldberger, (202) 482-4136. Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia (A-557-813) (1st Review) David Goldberger, (202) 482-4136. Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Taiwan (A-583-843) (1st Review) David Goldberger, (202) 482-4136. Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand (A-549-821) (1st Review) David Goldberger, (202) 482-4136. Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Vietnam (A-552-806) (1st Review) David Goldberger, (202) 482-4136. Countervailing Duty Proceedings Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India (C-533-839) (2nd Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith, (202) 482-5255. Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Vietnam, (C-552-805) (1st Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith, (202) 482-5255. Suspended Investigations No Sunset Review of suspended investigations is scheduled for initiation in April 2015.

    The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. The Notice of Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews provides further information regarding what is required of all parties to participate in Sunset Reviews.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the Department will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact the Department in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.

    Please note that if the Department receives a Notice of Intent to Participate from a member of the domestic industry within 15 days of the date of initiation, the review will continue. Thereafter, any interested party wishing to participate in the Sunset Review must provide substantive comments in response to the notice of initiation no later than 30 days after the date of initiation.

    This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

    Dated: February 23, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04278 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-475-819] Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2012 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Department) conducted an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain pasta from Italy. On August 25, 2014, we published the Preliminary Results for this administrative review.1 The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012. We find that DeMatteis Agroalimentare S.p.A. (also known as, De Matteis Agroalimentare SpA) (DeMatteis) received countervailable subsidies during the POR, and that Fratelli DeCecco di Filippo Fara San Martino S.p.A. (also known as, F.lli De Cecco di Filippo Fara San Martino S.p.A.) (DeCecco) received de minimis countervailable subsidies during the POR. As such, we are applying DeMatteis' rate to the other firms subject to this review that were not individually examined.

    1See Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2012, 79 FR 50618 (August 25, 2014) (Preliminary Results).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: March 2, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sergio Balbontin or Joshua Morris, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6478 or (202) 482-1779, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    In the Preliminary Results, we deferred our analysis of certain programs to a post-preliminary analysis. On October 30, 2014, we issued a post-preliminary analysis memorandum.2 We invited interested parties to file case briefs and rebuttal briefs following the release of the post-preliminary analysis memorandum. Only the Government of Italy (the GOI) filed a case brief.

    2See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Post-Preliminary Analysis of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from Italy” (October 30, 2014).

    Scope of the Order

    The scope of the Order consists of certain pasta from Italy.3 The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable under items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the Order is contained in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from Italy,” from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated February 23, 2015 (Issues and Decision Memorandum), and hereby adopted by this notice.

    3See Notice of Countervailing Duty Order and Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Pasta (“Pasta”) From Italy, 61 FR 38544 (July 24, 1996) (Order).

    The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).4 ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. A list of topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is provided in the Appendix to this notice.

    4 On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and Compliance changed the name of Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”) to AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). The Web site location was changed from http://iaaccess.trade.gov to http://access.trade.gov. The Final Rule changing the references to the Regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014).

    Methodology

    We have conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we determine that there is a subsidy, i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.5 In making these findings, we have relied, in part, on an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available because we find that the GOI did not act to the best of its ability to respond to our requests for information regarding certain programs.6

    5See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    6See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. For further discussion, see Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences.”

    DeMatteis reported that it made export sales of pasta to the United States through an unaffiliated trading company, Agritalia S.r.L. (Agritalia), during the POR. In the Preliminary Results, we stated our intent to re-examine the approach we used regarding subsidies to Agritalia in the Tenth Administrative Review, 7 and we solicited comments in that regard.8 We received no comments on this issue.

    7See Certain Pasta from Italy: Preliminary Results of the Tenth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 43616, 43622 (August 6, 2007), unchanged in Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of the Tenth (2005) Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 7251 (February 7, 2008) (collectively, Tenth Administrative Review).

    8See Preliminary Results, 79 FR 50619.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b) and 19 CFR 351.221(b), Agritalia is not a respondent in this review because a review was not requested for Agritalia. However, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.525(c), benefits from subsidies provided to a trading company which exports subject merchandise shall be cumulated with benefits from subsidies provided to the firm that is producing the subject merchandise that is sold through the trading company, regardless of whether the trading company and the producing firm are affiliated. Thus, for these final results, we are cumulating the benefits from subsidies received by Agritalia with the benefits from subsidies received by DeMatteis based on the percentage of DeMatteis' exports of subject merchandise to the United States that were made through Agritalia during the POR.9

    9 For further discussion, see Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Subsidy Valuation Information.”

    Final Results of the Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated individual subsidy rates for the mandatory respondents, DeMatteis and DeCecco.

    Three respondents were not selected for individual review: Ghigi Industria Agroalimentare in San Clemente srl, Pasta Granoro S.r.L. (also known as, Pastifico Attilio Mastromauro Granoro S.r.L), and Valdigrano di Flavio Pagani S.r.L. For these non-selected respondents, we assigned the CVD rate calculated for DeMatteis because it is the only rate calculated in this review that is not de minimis. 10 As such, we find the net countervailable subsidy rate for the producers and/or exporters under review to be as follows:

    10See, e.g., Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results of the 13th (2008) Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 18806, 18811 (April 13, 2010), unchanged in Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the 13th (2008) Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 37386 (June 29, 2010).

    Producer/exporter Net subsidy rate DeMatteis Agroalimentare S.p.A. (also known as De Matteis Agroalimentare SpA) 1.72 Fratelli DeCecco di Filippo Fara San Martino S.p.A. (also known as F.lli De Cecco di Filippo Fara San Martino S.p.A.) * 0.19 Ghigi Industria Agroalimentare in San Clemente srl 1.72 Pasta Granoro S.r.L. (also known as, Pastifico Attilio Mastromauro Granoro S.r.L) 1.72 Valdigrano di Flavio Pagani S.r.L 1.72 * (De minimis.) Assessment Rates

    Consistent with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), we intend to issue assessment instructions to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) fifteen days after the date of publication of these final results. We will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on POR entries in the amounts shown above, except for entries of merchandise produced and/or exported by DeCecco, which will be liquidated without regard to countervailing duties because its subsidy rate is de minimis.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, we intend to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown above on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review, except that cash deposits of zero percent will be required for entries from DeCecco because its subsidy rate is de minimis. For all non-reviewed companies (except Barilla G. e R. F.lli S.p.A. and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.l., which are excluded from the order,11 and Pasta Lensi S.r.l., which was revoked from the Order),12 we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to companies covered by the Order, but not examined in this review, are those established in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding for each company. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    11See Order, 61 FR at 38545.

    12See Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Ninth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Revocation of Order, in Part, 71 FR 36318, 36319-36320 (June 26, 2006).

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

    Dated: February 23, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences 5. Subsidy Valuation Information 6. Analysis of Programs 7. Analysis of Comment: Application of Adverse Facts Available (AFA) for Sgravi Programs 8. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-04340 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD802 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Law Enforcement Advisory Panel (LEAP) in conjunction with the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission's Law Enforcement Committee (LEC).

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held from 8:30 a.m. until 12 noon on Tuesday, March 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Grand Hotel Point Clear Resort & Spa, One Grand Boulevard, Point Clear, AL 36564. Telephone: (251) 928-9201.

    Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Steven Atran, Senior Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630; fax: (813) 348-1711; email: [email protected] and Mr. Steve Vanderkooy, Inter-jurisdictional Fisheries Coordinator, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission; telephone: (228) 875-5912; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The items of discussion on the agenda are as follows:

    Joint Gulf Council's Law Enforcement Advisory Panel and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission's Law Enforcement Committee Meeting Agenda, Tuesday, March 17, 2015, 8:30 a.m. Until 12 Noon 1. Adoption of Agenda 2. Approval of Minutes of October 20, 2014 LEC/LEAP Meeting 3. Current GMFMC Amendments and Framework Actions a. Reef Fish Amendment 39—Red Snapper Regional Management b. South Florida Management Issues 4. IUU Fishing Issues and Possible Council/Commission Actions a. Presentation on IUU fishing—Mexican lanchas b. GSMFC IUU letter c. Proposed MSA Reauthorization language d. Ideas for actions by Council and Commission i. Develop a smartphone app for reporting violations ii. Discussion of ways to avoid waste of seized fish iii. other e. Other 5. Proposed Officer of the Year Award program 6. IJF Program Activity a. Blue Crab b. Gulf Menhaden c. Gulf and Southern Flounder d. Tripletail 7. State Report Highlights a. Florida b. Alabama c. Mississippi d. Louisiana e. Texas f. USCG g. NOAA OLE h. USFWS 8. Other Business —Adjourn—

    The Law Enforcement Advisory Panel consists of principal law enforcement officers in each of the Gulf States, as well as the NOAA Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the NOAA General Counsel for Law Enforcement.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Council Office (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: February 24, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04209 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee; Public Meeting AGENCY:

    Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of a meeting via web conference call of the Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee (Committee). The web conference calls are open to the public, and participants can dial in to the calls. Participants who choose to use the web conferencing feature in addition to the audio will be able to view the presentations as they are being given.

    DATES:

    Members of the public wishing to participate in the meeting must register in advance by Friday, April 3, 2015.

    The meeting will be held Monday, April 6, from 12:30 to 2:30 p.m. EDT. These times and the agenda topics described below are subject to change. Refer to the Web page listed below for the most up-to-date meeting agenda.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via web conference call. Register by contacting Gonzalo Cid at [email protected] or 301-713-7278. Webinar and teleconference capacity may be limited.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lauren Wenzel, Acting Designated Federal Officer, MPA FAC, National Marine Protected Areas Center, 1305 East West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. (Phone: 301-713-7265, Fax: 301-713-3110); email: [email protected]; or visit the National MPA Center Web site at http://www.marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Committee, composed of external, knowledgeable representatives of stakeholder groups, was established by the Department of Commerce (DOC) to provide advice to the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior on implementation of Section 4 of Executive Order 13158, on marine protected areas.

    Matters to be Considered: The focus of the Committee's meeting is a discussion of the Committee charge and Committee organization (e.g. Subcommittees and Workgroups) to address it. The Committee will also hear updates from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Department of the Interior. The agenda is subject to change. The latest version will be posted at http://www.marineprotectedareas .noaa.gov.

    Dated: February 13, 2015. Daniel J. Basta, Director, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04246 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD793 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Habitat Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 9 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Seaport Inn and Marina, 110 Middle Street, Fairhaven, MA 02719; telephone: (508) 997-1281; fax: (508) 996-5717.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The panel will discuss and develop recommendations for preferred alternatives to Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2 (OHA2). They also plan to discuss specific topics related to OHA2 as requested by the Habitat committee. They will discuss other business as necessary.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: February 25, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04218 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Hydrographic Services Review Panel Meeting AGENCY:

    National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Hydrographic Services Review Panel (HSRP) is a Federal Advisory Committee established to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, the NOAA Administrator, on matters related to the responsibilities and authorities set forth in section 303 of the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998, as amended, and such other appropriate matters that the Under Secretary refers to the Panel for review and advice.

    Date and Time: The public meeting will be held from April 8-10, 2015. April 8th from 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon PST; April 9 from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. PST; and April 10th from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

    Location: Long Beach, California, with the exact meeting location to be determined and posted online. Please refer to the following Web site for updates on the location, agenda, presentations, speaker's biographies, the webinar, and public comments: http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/ocs/hsrp/meetings.htm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Visit the NOAA HSRP Web site at http://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/ocs/hsrp/hsrp.htm, or contact Lynne Mersfelder-Lewis, HSRP Coordinator, National Ocean Service (NOS), Office of Coast Survey, NOAA (N/CS), 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; Telephone: 301-713-2702 ext. 199; Fax: 301-713-4019; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meeting will be open to the public and public comment periods (on-site) will be scheduled at various times throughout the meeting. These comment periods will be included in the final agenda published before April 1, 2015, and posted on the HSRP Web site listed above. Each individual or group making verbal comments will be limited to a total time of five (5) minutes. Comments will be recorded. Written comments should be submitted in advance to [email protected] by April 1, 2015. Written comments received after April 1, 2015, will be distributed to the HSRP, but may not be reviewed until the meeting. Public seating will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. Times and agenda topics are subject to change. Refer to the HSRP Web site listed below for exact location and the updated meeting agenda:http://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/ocs/hsrp/hsrp.htm.

    Matters To Be Considered: Regional and local stakeholders will present to the HSRP on issues relevant to NOAA's hydrographic services including: (1) The management, maintenance, interpretation, certification, and dissemination of bathymetric, hydrographic, shoreline, geodetic, geospatial, geomagnetic, and tide, water level, and current information, including the production of nautical charts, nautical information databases, and other products derived from hydrographic data; (2) the development of nautical information systems; and (3) related activities.

    Broad topic areas to be discussed will focus on the use and application of NOAA's navigation, observations and positioning data, products, and services (coastal intelligence) to support: (1) The Long Beach—Los Angeles and California marine transportation system; (2) regional efforts to improve shipping efficiencies; (3) the NOAA Precision Navigation project to improve navigation decision support; (4) geospatial data and tools to support local and regional coastal planning and development; (5) other topics submitted by stakeholders.

    The HSRP will hold focused breakout sessions to discuss challenges and issues on Thursday, April 9, and Friday, April 10, 2015, on priority topics including: (1) Coastal Intelligence; (2) Coastal Resilience; and (3) Emerging Arctic navigation issues. The public is invited to participate and sign up for these sessions by contacting the HSRP Coordinator, Lynne Mersfelder-Lewis at email: [email protected], or NOAA's California Navigation Manager, Jeffrey Ferguson at email: [email protected]

    The breakout sessions provide the public with the opportunity to interact with HSRP members on concerns or issues with NOAA's navigation, observations, and positioning data, products, and services, and to present options or recommendations for improvement. The HSRP will consider input from these breakout sessions, and from the other meeting presentations, to develop its recommendations to the NOAA Under Secretary for improving NOAA's suite of navigation, observation and positioning data, products, and services. Other matters to be discussed include activities relating to hydrography, geodesy, coastal mapping, and tides, currents and water levels, as well as administrative matters pertaining to the HSRP.

    The HSRP meeting will provide GoToWebinar services and teleconference capability for public access to listen to and observe the meeting presentations. Members of the public who wish to participate virtually must register in advance by April 1, 2015. Webinar service is available during the main sessions and teleconference capability is available during the break-out sessions. The times are subject to change and participants should refer to the HSRP Web site for the most up to date information. To register for virtual access or submit public comments before the virtual sessions begin, please submit requests by no later than April 1, 2015, to Lynne Mersfelder-Lewis at email: [email protected]

    Dated: February 18, 2015. Gerd F. Glang, Director, Office of Coast Survey, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04249 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD764 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting.

    DATES:

    The SSC meeting will be held on Wednesday and Thursday, March 18-19, 2015. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. on March 18 and conclude by 2 p.m. on March 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at Pier V, 711 Eastern Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21202; telephone: (410) 539-2000.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda items to be discussed at the SSC meeting include: Review fishery performance report and multi-year ABC specifications for golden tilefish; discuss MAFMC risk policy and stock assessment level assignments; review Climate and Fisheries White Paper; update on research prioritization and five-year research plan development; review data poor methods applied to black sea bass for potential changes to current and future ABC specification; discuss outcomes from the Fifth National SSC Workshop; receive update on Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management activities and building MSE capacity on Greater Atlantic Region; discuss SSC schedule and lead assignments for 2015.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during the meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Saunders at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: February 25, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04217 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD795 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Committee will hold a public meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held Tuesday, March 17, 2015, at 10 a.m. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via internet webinar. A webinar link will be available on the Council's Web page, www.mafmc.org. Interested parties may also come to the Council address below to access the webinar if they contact the Council at least 24 hours before the meeting.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State St., Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255. The Council's Web site, www.mafmc.org also has details on the meeting location, proposed agenda, webinar access, and briefing materials.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following items are on the agenda, though agenda items may be addressed out of order (changes will be noted on the Council's Web site when possible).

    Tuesday, March 17, 2015, 10 a.m.

    NMFS HMS staff will make a presentation regarding Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan for Management of Atlantic Sharks, which published in the Federal Register on January 20, 2015 (80 FR 2648) and has a comment due date of April 3, 2015 (www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2010-0188). The Council's HMS Committee will then develop comments on the Amendment and consider if any additional actions are appropriate.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: February 24, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04208 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD797 Marine Mammals; File No. 19293 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that Dolphin World Productions Ltd, 59 Cotham Hill, Bristol, BS6 6JR, United Kingdom, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct commercial or educational photography on bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus).

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before April 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page, https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting File No. 19293 from the list of available applications.

    These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to [email protected] Please include the File No. 19293 in the subject line of the email comment.

    Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Skidmore or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

    The applicant proposes to film and photograph the Florida Bay stock of bottlenose dolphins for purposes of a documentary film. The applicant is requesting up to 140 takes of these animals by Level B harassment via aircraft (helicopter) and up to 828 takes by Level B harassment from a small 20ft. vessel. Filming would take place for approximately 30 days between May 20, 2015 to September 1, 2015. Obtained footage will be part of a documentary film describing the delicate balance needed to maintain a coral reef by viewing it from the perspective of a dolphin.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

    Dated: February 24, 2015. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04167 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Recording Assignments

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce

    Title: Recording Assignments

    OMB Control Number: 0651-0027

    Form Number(s):

    • PTO-1594

    • PTO-1595

    Type of Request: Regular

    Number of Respondents: 524,298

    Average Hours per Response: 0.5

    Burden Hours: 262,150 annually

    Cost Burden: $2,954,726

    Needs and Uses:

    This collection of information is required by 35 U.S.C. 261 and 262 for patents and 15 U.S.C. 1057 and 1060 for trademarks. These statutes authorize the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to record patent and trademark assignment documents, including transfers of properties (i.e. patents and trademarks), liens, licenses, assignments of interest, security interests, mergers, and explanations of transactions or other documents that record the transfer of ownership of a particular patent or trademark property from one party to another. Assignments are recorded for applications, patents, and trademark registrations.

    The USPTO administers these statutes through 37 CFR 2.146, 2.171, and 37 CFR part 3. These rules permit the public, corporations, other federal agencies, and Government-owned or Government-controlled corporations to submit patent and trademark assignment documents and other documents related to title transfers to the USPTO to be recorded. In accordance with 37 CFR 3.54, the recording of an assignment document by the USPTO is an administrative action and not a determination of the validity of the document or of the effect that the document has on the title to an application, patent, or trademark.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits; not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency: On occasion

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits

    OMB Desk Officer: Nicholas A. Fraser, email: [email protected]

    Once submitted, the request will be publicly available in electronic format through reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Paper copies can be obtained by:

    Email: [email protected] Include “0651-0027 Recording Assignments” in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Marcie Lovett, Records Management Division Director, Office of the Chief Information Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before April 1, 2015 to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB Desk Officer, via email to [email protected], or by fax to 202-395-5167, marked to the attention of Nicholas A. Fraser.

    Dated: February 20, 2015. Marcie Lovett, Records Management Division Director, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04214 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Proposed Collection; Comment Request; “Rules for Patent Maintenance Fees” AGENCY:

    United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before May 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include “0651-0016 Rules for Patent Maintenance Fees” in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Marcie Lovett, Records Management Division Director, Office of the Chief Information Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.

    Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-7728; or by email at [email protected] with “Paperwork” in the subject line. Additional information about this collection is also available at http://www.reginfo.gov under “Information Collection Review.”

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    Under 35 U.S.C. § 41 and 37 CFR 1.20(e)-(i) and 1.362-1.378, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) charges fees for maintaining in force all utility patents based on applications filed on or after December 12, 1980. Payment of these maintenance fees is due at 3 1/2, 7 1/2, and 11 1/2 years after the date the patent was granted. If the USPTO does not receive payment of the appropriate maintenance fee and any applicable surcharge within a grace period of six months following each of the above due dates (at 4, 8, or 12 years after the date of grant), the patent will expire at that time. After a patent expires, it is no longer enforceable. Maintenance fees are not required for design or plant patents, or for reissue patents if the patent being reissued did not require maintenance fees.

    Payments of maintenance fees that are submitted during the six-month grace period before patent expiration must include the appropriate surcharge as indicated by 37 CFR 1.20(h). Submissions of maintenance fee payments and surcharges must include the relevant patent number and the corresponding United States application number in order to identify the correct patent and ensure proper crediting of the fee being paid.

    If the USPTO refuses to accept and record a maintenance fee payment that was submitted prior to the expiration of a patent, the patentee may petition the Director to accept and record the maintenance fee under 37 CFR 1.377. This petition must be accompanied by the fee indicated in 37 CFR 1.17(g), which may be refunded if it is determined that the refusal to accept the maintenance fee was due to an error by the USPTO.

    If a patent has expired due to nonpayment of a maintenance fee, the patentee may petition the Director to accept a delayed payment of the maintenance fee under 37 CFR 1.378. The Director may accept the payment of a maintenance fee after the expiration of the patent if the petitioner shows to the satisfaction of the Director that the delay in payment was unintentional. Petitions to accept unintentionally delayed payment must also be accompanied by the required maintenance fee and appropriate surcharge under 37 CFR 1.20(i). If the Director accepts the maintenance fee payment upon petition, then the patent is reinstated. If the USPTO denies a petition to accept delayed payment of a maintenance fee in an expired patent, the patentee may petition the Director to reconsider that decision under 37 CFR 1.378(e). This petition must be accompanied by the fee indicated in 37 CFR 1.17(f), which may be refunded if it is determined that the refusal to accept the maintenance fee was due to an error by the USPTO.

    The rules of practice (37 CFR 1.33(d) and 1.363) permit applicants, patentees, assignees, or their representatives of record to specify a “fee address” for correspondence related to maintenance fees that is separate from the correspondence address associated with a patent or application. A fee address must be an address that is associated with a USPTO customer number. Customer numbers may be requested by using the Request for Customer Number form (PTO/SB/125), which is covered under OMB control number 0651-0035. Maintaining a correct and updated address is necessary so that fee-related correspondence from the USPTO will be properly received by the applicant, patentee, assignee, or authorized representative. If a separate fee address is not specified for a patent or application, the USPTO will direct fee-related correspondence to the correspondence address of record.

    The USPTO offers forms to assist the public with providing information covered by this collection, including the information necessary to submit a patent maintenance fee payment (PTO/SB/45) and to designate or change a fee address (PTO/SB/47). The USPTO offers a total of three different versions of the form for petitions to accept unintentionally delayed payment of maintenance fee in an expired patent under 37 CFR 1.378(c). In addition to (i) the basic PDF that may be filled out electronically and then printed and mailed (or submitted online) (Form PTO/SB/66), the USPTO offers (ii) an enhanced PDF that is designed only to be submitted electronically through EFS-Web (PTO/SB/66—EFS-Web), and (iii) a Web-based ePetition, which the public can complete on a computer using a Web browser and then click a submit button to send the information to the USPTO over the Internet (ePetition). No forms are provided for the petitions under 37 CFR 1.377 and 1.378(e).

    Customers may submit maintenance fee payments and surcharges incurred during the six-month grace period before patent expiration by using the Maintenance Fee Transmittal Form (PTO/SB/45) or by paying online through the USPTO Web site. However, to pay a maintenance fee after patent expiration, the maintenance fee payment and the appropriate surcharge must be filed together with a petition to accept unintentionally delayed payment. The USPTO accepts online maintenance fee payments by credit card, deposit account, or electronic funds transfer (EFT). Otherwise, non-electronic payments may be made by check, credit card, or deposit account.

    II. Method of Collection

    By mail, facsimile, hand delivery, or electronically to the USPTO.

    III. Data

    OMB Number: 0651-0016.

    IC Instruments: The individual instruments in this collection, as well as their associated forms, are listed in the table below.

    IC number Form and function Form # 1 Maintenance Fee Transmittal Form, electronic and paper PTO/SB/45 2 Electronic Maintenance Fee Form, electronic No Form Associated 3 Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(c)), electronic and paper PTO/SB/66 4 Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(c))—EFS-Web, electronic PTO/SB/66 5 Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(c))—ePetition, electronic ePetition 6 Petition to Review Refusal to Accept Payment of Maintenance Fee Prior to Expiration of Patent (37 CFR 1.377), electronic and paper No Form Associated 7 Petition for Reconsideration of Decision on Petition Refusing to Accept Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(e)), electronic and paper No Form Associated 8 “Fee Address” Indication Form, electronic and paper PTO/SB/47

    Type of Review: Regular

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; businesses or other for-profits; and not-for-profit institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 525,309 responses per year. The USPTO estimates that approximately 25% of these responses will be from small entities.

    Estimated Time per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately 20 seconds (0.006 hours) to 8 hours to submit the information in this collection, including the time to gather the necessary information, prepare the appropriate form or petition, and submit the completed request to the USPTO. The time per response, estimated annual responses, and estimated annual hour burden associated with each instrument in this information collection is shown in the table below.

    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 18,123.42 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost Burden (Hourly): $3,263,347.08. The USPTO expects that the petitions included in this collection will be prepared by attorneys and that the other items in this collection will be prepared by paraprofessionals. Using the professional rate of $389 per hour for attorneys in private firms, the USPTO estimates that the respondent cost burden for attorneys submitting the petitions will total $1,470,420 per year. Using the paraprofessional rate of $125 per hour, the USPTO estimates that the respondent cost burden for paraprofessionals submitting the other items in this collection will total $1,792,927.08 per year, for a total annual respondent cost burden of $3,263,347.08.

    IC No. Item/form No. Minutes Responses
  • (yr)
  • Burden
  • (hrs/yr)
  • Rate
  • ($/hr)
  • Total cost
  • ($/yr)
  • (a) (b) (c) (a x b)/60 (d) (e) (c x d) 1 Maintenance Fee Transmittal Transactions (PTO/SB/45) 5 37,434 3,119.5 $125.00 $389,937.50 2 Electronic Maintenance Fee Transactions 0.333 375,555 2,086.42 125.00 260,802.08 3 Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(c)) (PTO/SB/66) 60 1,000 1,000 389.00 389,000.00 4 Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(c)) (PTO/SB/66)—EFS-Web 60 500 500 389.00 194,500.00 5 Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(c)) (PTO/SB/66)—ePetition 60 1,000 1,000 389.00 389,000.00 6 Petition to Review Refusal to Accept Payment of Maintenance Fee Prior to Expiration of Patent (37 CFR 1.377) 240 20 80 389.00 31,120.00 7 Petition for Reconsideration of Decision on Petition Refusing to Accept Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(e)) 480 150 1,200 389.00 466,800.00 8 “Fee Address” Indication Form (PTO/SB/47) 5 109,650 9,137.5 125.00 1,142,187.50 Totals 525,309 18,123.42 3,263,347.08

    Estimated Total Annual Cost Burden (Non-Hourly): $3,801.42. This information collection has annual (non-hour) cost burden in the form of postage costs.

    The public may submit the forms and petitions in this collection to the USPTO by mail through the United States Postal Service. If the submission is sent by first-class mail, the public may also include a signed certification of the date of mailing in order to receive credit for timely filing. The USPTO estimates that the average first-class postage cost for a mailed submission will be 49 cents and that approximately 7,758 submissions per year may be mailed to the USPTO, for a total postage cost of $3,801.42 per year.

    IC No. Item Responses Postage cost Total non-hour cost burden (postage) (a) (b) (c) (a x b) 3 Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(c)) 70 $0.49 $34.30 6 Petition to Review Refusal to Accept Payment of Maintenance Fee Prior to Expiration of Patent (37 CFR 1.377) 1 0.49 0.49 7 Petition for Reconsideration of Decision on Petition Refusing to Accept Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(e)) 11 0.49 5.39 8 “Fee Address” Indication Form 7,676 0.49 3,761.24 Totals 7,758 3,801.42

    The total (non-hour) respondent cost burden for this collection in the form of postage costs is estimated to be $3,801.42 per year.

    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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: February 20, 2015. Marcie Lovett, Records Management Division Director, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04212 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [CPSC Docket No. 15-C0003] General Electric Company, Provisional Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement and Order AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    It is the policy of the Commission to publish settlements which it provisionally accepts under the Consumer Product Safety Act in the Federal Register in accordance with the terms of 16 CFR 1118.20(e). Published below is a provisionally-accepted Settlement Agreement with General Electric Company, containing a civil penalty of $3,500,000, within twenty (20) days of service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Settlement Agreement.

    DATES:

    Any interested person may ask the Commission not to accept this agreement or otherwise comment on its contents by filing a written request with the Office of the Secretary by March 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Persons wishing to comment on this Settlement Agreement should send written comments to the Comment 15-C0003 Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Room 820, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer C. Argabright, Trial Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Division of Compliance, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408; telephone (301) 504-7808.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The text of the Agreement and Order appears below.

    Dated: February 24, 2015. Alberta E. Mills, Acting Secretary. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

    In the Matter of: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, CPSC Docket No.: 15-C0003

    SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

    1. In accordance with the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2051-2089 (CPSA) and 16 CFR 1118.20, General Electric Company (“GE” or “Firm”), and the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”), through its staff, hereby enter into this Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement, and the incorporated attached Order, resolve staff's charges set forth below.

    THE PARTIES

    2. The Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency, established pursuant to, and responsible for the enforcement of, the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2051-2089. By executing the Agreement, staff is acting on behalf of the Commission, pursuant to 16 CFR § 1118.20(b). The Commission issues the Order under the provisions of the CPSA.

    3. GE is a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York, with its principal place of business in Fairfield, CT. GE Appliances (“GEA” or “GE Appliances”) is an unincorporated business unit of GE that is located in Louisville, KY.

    STAFF CHARGES GE RANGES

    4. Between June 2002 through December 2004, GE imported into the United States approximately 28,000 dual fuel ranges (the Range). The Range was sold through department and appliance stores nationwide for approximately $1,300 to $2,000 between June 2002 and December 2005.

    5. The Range is a 30-inch wide GE Profile Dual Fuel Freestanding Range with an electric range with gas cooktop burners. The Range is a “consumer product” “distributed in commerce,” as those terms are defined or used in sections 3(a)(5), (8), and (11) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2052(a)(5), (8), and (11). At all relevant times, GE was a “manufacturer” of the Range, as such term is defined or used in sections 3(a)(11) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2052(a)(11).

    6. The Range is defective because a connector in the wire harness at the rear of the Range can overheat, posing a fire and burn hazard to consumers.

    7. GE first received notice of a possible Range failure in 2003, when a consumer reported to GE that she had called the fire department because the Range had caught fire while it was pre-heating. A GE technician noted that the wiring had shorted out. By the end of 2004, GE received four more consumer complaints of fire or melted wires. In 2004, GE technicians examined several of the Ranges involved in the consumer complaints and confirmed that the wiring harness at the rear of the Range could overheat, causing a fire hazard.

    8. In December 2004, to reduce the risk of an overheated connector, GE redesigned the Range to remove the connectors in the wiring harness. By this time, GE had obtained sufficient information that reasonably supported the conclusion that the Range contained a defect or possible defect which could create a substantial product hazard or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. GE was required to inform the Commission immediately of such defect or risk, as required by sections 15(b)(3) and (4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2064(b)(3) and (4).

    9. After the redesign of the Range, GE continued to receive reports from consumers of overheated wiring and fires that occurred in the back of the Range.

    10. Despite having information regarding the Range's defect or risk, GE failed to inform the Commission immediately of such defect or risk, as required by sections 15(b)(3) and (4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2064(b)(3) and (4).

    11. GE did not file its Full Report with the Commission until February 25, 2009. GE recalled the Range on April 8, 2009. By that time, GE was aware of an additional eight reports of harness and wiring overheating in the back of the Range, including five in which the consumer reported that the unit or wiring caught fire. GE failed to update the Commission regarding these new incidents.

    GE DISHWASHERS

    12. Between July 2003 and December 2006, GE manufactured approximately 174,000 stainless steel tub dishwashers (the Dishwasher). The Dishwasher was sold through department and appliance stores nationwide for approximately $750 to $1,400 between July 2003 and October 2010.

    13. The Dishwasher was sold under brand name of GE Profile or GE Monogram. The Dishwasher is a “consumer product” “distributed in commerce,” as those terms are defined or used in sections 3(a)(5), (8), and (11) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2052(a)(5), (8), and (11). At all relevant times, GE was a “manufacturer” of the Dishwasher, as such term is defined or used in sections 3(a)(11) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2052(a)(11).

    14. The Dishwasher is defective because it can short circuit due to electrolytic condensate on the control board. The short circuit can result in an overheated connector in the dishwasher, posing a fire and burn hazard to consumers.

    15. GE first received notice of a possible Dishwasher control-related incident in 2007, when a consumer reported to GE that his dishwasher had caught fire in the middle of the night due to an overheated control panel. In 2008 and 2009, GE received more reports of Dishwasher control-related fires, and GE paid out insurance settlements to several consumers based on these reports. Many of these reports explicitly alleged a fire that originated at the control panel within the Dishwasher's metal door.

    16. Despite this information, GE did not file a Full Report concerning the Dishwasher with the Commission until September 14, 2010. GE recalled the Dishwasher on October 26, 2010.

    17. In failing to inform the Commission about the Range or Dishwasher (together, “Subject Products”) immediately, GE knowingly violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2068(a)(4), as the term “knowingly” is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2069(d).

    18. Pursuant to section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2069, GE is subject to civil penalties for its knowing failure to report, as required under section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2064(b).

    RESPONSE OF GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

    19. GE does not admit the staff's charges set forth in paragraphs 4 through 18 above, including, but not limited to, the charge that the Subject Products contained a defect that could create a substantial product hazard or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, and the charge that GE failed to notify the Commission in a timely manner, in accordance with section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2064(b).

    20. GE enters into this Agreement to settle this matter without the delay and expense of litigation. GE enters into this Agreement and agrees to pay the amount referenced below in compromise of the staff's charges.

    21. GE voluntarily notified the Commission in connection with the Ranges in February 2009. GE was (and is) not aware of any report of injury associated with the Ranges and reported issue. GE voluntarily notified the Commission in connection with the Dishwashers in August 2010. GE was (and is) not aware of any report of serious injury associated with the Dishwashers and reported issue. GE carried out voluntary recalls in cooperation with the Commission and acted to reduce the potential risk of injury.

    22. At all relevant times, GEA has had a product safety compliance program, including dedicated product safety personnel, new product qualification design and testing safety-related requirements, written product safety compliance policies, and written procedures for notifying the Commission about potential safety issues, in accordance with section 15(b) of the CPSA. GEA's product safety compliance program, including its policies and procedures, has been enhanced over time, as appropriate.

    AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES

    23. Under the CPSA, the Commission has jurisdiction over the matter involving the Products described herein and over GE.

    24. The parties enter into the Agreement for settlement purposes only. The Agreement does not constitute an admission by GE or a determination by the Commission that GE violated the CPSA's reporting requirements.

    25. In settlement of staff's charges, and to avoid the cost, distraction, delay, uncertainty, and inconvenience of protracted litigation or other proceedings, GE shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of three million, five hundred thousand dollars ($3,500,000) within twenty (20) calendar days after receiving service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement. The payment shall be made by electronic wire transfer to the Commission via: http://www.pay.gov.

    26. After staff receives this Agreement executed on behalf of GE, staff shall promptly submit the Agreement to the Commission for provisional acceptance. Promptly following provisional acceptance of the Agreement by the Commission, the Agreement shall be placed on the public record and published in the Federal Register, in accordance with the procedures set forth in 16 CFR § 1118.20(e). If the Commission does not receive any written request not to accept the Agreement within fifteen (15) calendar days, the Agreement shall be deemed finally accepted on the 16th calendar day after the date the Agreement is published in the Federal Register, in accordance with 16 CFR § 1118.20(f).

    27. This Agreement is conditioned upon, and subject to, the Commission's final acceptance, as set forth above, and it is subject to the provisions of 16 C.F.R § 1118.20(h). Upon the later of: (i) Commission's final acceptance of this Agreement and service of the accepted Agreement upon GE, and (ii) the date of issuance of the final Order, this Agreement shall be in full force and effect and shall be binding upon the parties.

    28. Effective upon the later of: (i) the Commission's final acceptance of the Agreement and service of the accepted Agreement upon GE, and (ii) the date of issuance of the final Order, for good and valuable consideration, GE hereby expressly and irrevocably waives and agrees not to assert any past, present, or future rights to the following, in connection with the matter described in this Agreement: (i) an administrative or judicial hearing; (ii) judicial review or other challenge or contest of the Commission's actions; (iii) a determination by the Commission of whether GE failed to comply with the CPSA and the underlying regulations; (iv) a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (v) any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

    29. GE represents and agrees that GEA has and shall maintain a compliance program designed to ensure compliance with sections 15(b) of the CPSA with respect to any consumer product imported, manufactured, and/or distributed by GEA. In addition to the program components set out in paragraph 22 of this Agreement, GE represents and agrees that GEA's compliance program contains and shall continue to contain the following elements: (i) written standards and policies; (ii) a mechanism for confidential employee reporting of compliance-related questions or concerns to either a compliance officer or to another senior manager with authority to act as necessary; (iii) effective communication of company compliance-related policies and procedures regarding CPSA sections 15(b) to all applicable employees through training programs or otherwise; (iv) GEA senior management responsibility for, and general board oversight of, compliance; and (v) retention of all compliance-related records for at least five (5) years, and availability of such records to staff upon reasonable request.

    30. GE represents and agrees that GEA has and shall maintain and enforce a system of internal controls and procedures designed to ensure that, with respect to all consumer products imported, manufactured, and/or distributed by GEA: (i) information required to be disclosed by GE to the Commission is recorded, processed, and reported in accordance with applicable law; (ii) all reporting made to the Commission is timely, truthful, complete, accurate, and in accordance with applicable law; and (iii) prompt disclosure is made to GE's management of any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the design or operation of such internal controls that are reasonably likely to affect adversely, in any material respect, GEA's ability to record, process, and report to the Commission in accordance with applicable law.

    31. Upon reasonable request of staff, GE shall cause GEA to provide written documentation of its internal controls and procedures, including, but not limited to, the effective dates of the procedures and improvements thereto. GE shall cause GEA to cooperate fully and truthfully with staff and shall make available all non-privileged information and materials, and personnel deemed necessary by staff to evaluate GE's compliance with the terms of the Agreement.

    32. The parties acknowledge and agree that the Commission may publicize the terms of the Agreement and the Order. Any press release shall substantially conform to the terms of this Settlement Agreement.

    33. GE represents that the Agreement: (i) is entered into freely and voluntarily, without any degree of duress or compulsion whatsoever; (ii) has been duly authorized; and (iii) constitutes the valid and binding obligation of GE, enforceable against GE in accordance with its terms. GE also represents that GE will not directly or indirectly receive any reimbursement, indemnification, insurance-related payment, or other payment in connection with the civil penalty to be paid by GE pursuant to the Agreement and Order. The individuals signing the Agreement on behalf of GE represent and warrant that they are duly authorized by GE to execute the Agreement.

    34. The Commission signatories represent that they are signing the Agreement in their official capacities and that they are authorized to execute this Agreement.

    35. The Agreement is governed by the laws of the United States.

    36. Except as set forth in Paragraph 37, the Agreement and the Order shall apply to, and be binding upon, GE and each of its successors, transferees, and assigns, and a violation of the Agreement or Order may subject GE, and each of its successors, transferees and assigns, to appropriate legal action.

    37. Paragraphs 29-31 of the Agreement shall apply to, and be binding upon, GE, unless and until GE no longer owns GEA, at which time Paragraphs 29-31 only shall apply to, and be binding upon, each of GE's successors, transferees, and assigns that acquire GEA.

    38. The Agreement and the Order constitute the complete agreement between the parties on the subject matter contained therein.

    39. The Agreement may be used in interpreting the Order. Understandings, agreements, representations, or interpretations apart from those contained in the Agreement and the Order may not be used to vary or contradict their terms. For purposes of construction, the Agreement shall be deemed to have been drafted by both of the parties and shall not, therefore, be construed against any party for that reason in any subsequent dispute.

    40. The Agreement may not be waived, amended, modified, or otherwise altered, except as in accordance with the provisions of 16 CFR § 1118.20(h). The Agreement may be executed in counterparts.

    41. If any provision of the Agreement or the Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the terms of the Agreement and the Order, such provision shall be fully severable. The balance of the Agreement and the Order shall remain in full force and effect, unless the Commission and GE agree in writing that severing the provision materially affects the purpose of the Agreement and the Order.

    GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Dated: February 4, 2015 By: Kevin Nolan Vice President, Technology GE Appliances, a division of the General Electric Company Buechel Bank Road Louisville, KY 40225 Dated: February 3, 2015 By: Eric A. Rubel Counsel to General Electric Company Arnold & Porter LLP 555 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-1206 U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION Stephanie Tsacoumis General Counsel Mary Boyle Deputy General Counsel Mary B. Murphy Assistant General Counsel Dated: February 3, 2015 By: Jennifer C. Argabright, Trial Attorney Division of Compliance Office of the General Counsel
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

    In the Matter of: General Electric Company

    CPSC Docket No.: 15-C0003
    ORDER

    Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between General Electric Company (GE), and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission), and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over GE, and it appearing that the Settlement Agreement and the Order are in the public interest, it is:

    ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement be, and is, hereby, accepted; and it is

    FURTHER ORDERED that GE shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of three million, five hundred thousand dollars ($3,500,000) within twenty (20) days after service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Settlement Agreement. The payment shall be made by electronic wire transfer to the Commission via: http://www.pay.gov. Upon the failure of GE to make the foregoing payment when due, interest on the unpaid amount shall accrue and be paid by GE at the federal legal rate of interest set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) and (b). If GE fails to make such payment or to comply in full with any other provision of the Settlement Agreement, such conduct will be considered a violation of the Settlement Agreement and Order.

    Provisionally accepted and provisional Order issued on the 13th day of February, 2015.

    BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION:

    Alberta Mills, Acting Secretary U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
    [FR Doc. 2015-04154 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2014-ICCD-0158] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Student Assistance General Provisions—Subpart A—General AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number ED-2014-ICCD-0158 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, ED will temporarily accept comments at [email protected] Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted; ED will ONLY accept comments during the comment period in this mailbox when the regulations.gov site is not available. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319, Room 2E105, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Student Assistance General Provisions—Subpart A—General.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0107.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households, Private Sector, State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 2,645,033.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 448,252.

    Abstract: The final regulations require an institution to report for each student who, during an award year, began attending or completed a program that leads to gainful employment in a recognized occupation the following information; information to identify the student and the location of the institution the student attended, the Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) code for each occupational training program that each student either began or completed, the completion date, the amount of private education loans and institutional financing incurred by each graduate, and whether a student matriculated into a higher credentialed program of study at the same or another institution. In addition, the final regulations will require the following disclosures to prospective students: the name and Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code for of each occupational training program and links to the Department of Labor's O- Net site to obtain occupation profile data using a SOC code, or a representative sample of SOC codes for graduates of its program; information about on-time graduation rates for students completing the program; the total amount of tuition and fees charged for completing the program within the normal time it takes to complete the course requirements as published in the institution's catalog, along with the typical costs for books and supplies, and the cost of room and board, if applicable, including providing a Web link or access to the program cost information the institution makes available to all enrolled and prospective students under section 668.43(a). Beginning July 1, 2011, the placement rate information as determined under the institution's accrediting agency or State requirements, or the placement rate that will be determined in the future by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and reported to the institution. In addition, the institution must disclose the median loan debt incurred by students who completed the program as provided by the Secretary, as well as any other information about the program provided by the Secretary. The institution must identify separately the median title IV, Higher Education Act (HEA) loan debt and the median loan debt from the private education loan debt and institutional financing plans. For each program, the institution must include the accreditation and licensing information provided to all currently enrolled as well as prospective students as posted on the institution's Web site.

    Dated: February 25, 2015. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04232 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION List of Correspondence From October 1, 2013, Through December 31, 2013 AGENCY:

    Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Secretary is publishing the following list of correspondence from the U.S. Department of Education (Department) to individuals during the previous quarter. The correspondence describes the Department's interpretations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or the regulations that implement the IDEA. This list and the letters or other documents described in this list, with personally identifiable information redacted, as appropriate, can be found at: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/index.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jessica Spataro or Mary Louise Dirrigl. Telephone: (202) 245-7605.

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), you can call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of this list and the letters or other documents described in this list in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting Jessica Spataro or Mary Louise Dirrigl at (202) 245-7605.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following list identifies correspondence from the Department issued from October 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013. Under section 607(f) of the IDEA, the Secretary is required to publish this list quarterly in the Federal Register. The list includes those letters that contain interpretations of the requirements of the IDEA and its implementing regulations, as well as letters and other documents that the Department believes will assist the public in understanding the requirements of the law. The list identifies the date and topic of each letter and provides summary information, as appropriate. To protect the privacy interests of the individual or individuals involved, personally identifiable information has been redacted, as appropriate.

    Part B—Assistance for Education of All Children With Disabilities Section 612—State Eligibility Topic Addressed: Least Restrictive Environment

    ○ Letter dated October 23, 2013, to University of Virginia, Curry School of Education Adapted Physical Education Director Luke E. Kelly, regarding physical education for children with disabilities ages 16 through 21.

    Section 614—Evaluations, Eligibility Determinations, Individualized Education Programs, and Educational Placements Topic Addressed: Evaluation Procedures

    ○ Letter dated December 20, 2013, to retired South Carolina Distinguished Professor of Education Jim Delisle, regarding students with high cognition who also require special education and related services.

    Topic Addressed: Specific Learning Disabilities

    ○ Letter dated November 5, 2013, to Midcoast Advocacy advocate Buckley J. Hugo, regarding Maine's procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability.

    Topic Addressed: Individualized Education Programs

    ○ Letter dated December 20, 2013, to DePaul University, College of Law Special Education Advocacy Clinical Instructor Deborah Pergament, regarding the impact of a short-term teachers' strike on services for children with disabilities.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: February 24, 2015. Sue Swenson, Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04283 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New Mexico AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a combined meeting of the Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Committee and Waste Management Committee of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico (known locally as the Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board [NNMCAB]). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, March 11, 2015, 2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    NNMCAB Office, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

    Purpose of the Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Committee (EM&R): The EM&R Committee provides a citizens' perspective to NNMCAB on current and future environmental remediation activities resulting from historical Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) operations and, in particular, issues pertaining to groundwater, surface water and work required under the New Mexico Environment Department Order on Consent. The EM&R Committee will keep abreast of DOE-EM and site programs and plans. The committee will work with the NNMCAB to provide assistance in determining priorities and the best use of limited funds and time. Formal recommendations will be proposed when needed and, after consideration and approval by the full NNMCAB, may be sent to DOE-EM for action.

    Purpose of the Waste Management (WM) Committee: The WM Committee reviews policies, practices and procedures, existing and proposed, so as to provide recommendations, advice, suggestions and opinions to the NNMCAB regarding waste management operations at the Los Alamos site.

    Tentative Agenda 1. 2:00 p.m. Approval of Agenda 2. 2:02 p.m. Approval of Minutes from February 18, 2015 3. 2:05 p.m. Old Business • Update from Ad Hoc Committees on Draft Recommendations Fines and Fees (Alex Puglisi, Gerald Martinez, Manuel Pacheco) • Consideration and Action on Draft Recommendation 2015-01 “Identification and Preparation of Disposition Site(s) To Enable the LANL Transuranic Disposal Operations To Remain Continually Operational” • Consideration and Action on Draft Recommendation 2015-02 “Budget Priorities for Fiscal Year 2016 for LANL EM Cleanup Work” 4. 2:20 p.m. New Business 5. 2:30 p.m. Update from Executive Committee—Doug Sayre, Chair 6. 2:40 p.m. Update from DOE—Lee Bishop/Mike Gardipe, Co-Deputy Designated Federal Officers 7. 2:50 p.m. EM Clean-up Presentation by DOE—TBD 8. 3:30 p.m. Public Comment Period 9. 3:45 p.m. Sub-Committee Breakout Session • Mid-Year Review of Fiscal Year 2015 Work Plans • General Committee Business 10. 4:00 p.m. Adjourn

    Public Participation: The NNMCAB's Committees welcome the attendance of the public at their combined committee meeting and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Menice Santistevan at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the telephone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Committees either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Menice Santistevan at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting date due to programmatic issues that had to be resolved prior to the meeting date.

    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Menice Santistevan at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents are on the Internet at:http://www.nnmcab.energy.gov/.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on February 25, 2015. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04256 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6405-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee; Meeting AGENCY:

    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting; Correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE), on February 17, 2015, published a notice of open meeting announcing an open meeting of the Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee. Due to member's availability, the meeting venue has been changed to a webinar and the date and time is now March 5, 2015, 1:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m. As a result, the language is being corrected in this notice.

    Corrections

    In the Federal Register of February 17, 2015, in FR DOC. 2015-03133, on page 8298, please make the following corrections:

    In the DATES heading, third column, second and third lines, replace text with “Thursday, March 5, 2015, 1:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m. (EDT).

    In the ADDRESSES heading, third column, fourth line, please remove “Marriott Wardman Park, 2660 Woodley Rd. NW., Washington, DC 20008” and replace with “Please register for the Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee meeting for March 5, 2015, 1:30 p.m. at: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6807084548871333889. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.”

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 24, 2015. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04231 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Wind and Water Power Technologies Office; Notice of a Meeting AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of External Merit Review Meeting for the Atmosphere to Electrons Initiative.

    SUMMARY:

    The Atmosphere to Electrons (A2e) Initiative within the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy intends to hold an External Merit Review in Washington, DC, on March 31 & April 1, 2015. The External Review Panel will review the current program planning and provide suggestion on the formulation of A2e strategy, goals and implementation approaches. The review panel will also assess the initiative's potential impact on the wind power industry and identify additional research initiatives and resources that might be required in the future.

    DATES:

    DOE will hold the External Merit Review on Tuesday, March 31, from 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m., and Wednesday, April 1, from 8:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public meeting will be held at the Washington Marriott Georgetown, 1221 22nd St NW., Washington, DC, 20037.

    Following the meeting a summary will be compiled by DOE and posted for public comment. For those interested in providing additional public comment, the summary will be posted at [http://energy.gov/eere/wind/atmosphere-electrons].

    You may submit comments by email to [[email protected]]. Include “A2e External Merit Review” in the subject line of the message.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Derby, EERE, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (202) 586-6830. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Atmosphere to Electrons (A2e) is a multi-year Department of Energy (DOE) research initiative targeting significant reductions in the cost of wind energy through an improved understanding of the complex physics of the wind resource and interaction with wind farms. Better insight into the flow physics and resource forecasting has the potential to increase wind farm energy capture, reduce annual operational costs, and improve project financing. Achieving these objectives requires a diverse set of expertise and significant R&D resources. The Wind and Water Power Technologies Office (WWPTO) has selected subject matter experts from its national laboratories at NREL, SNL, and PNNL to assist in the integrated program planning for the initiative based on DOE investments in world class computational and testing facilities as well as core expertise in topics critical to the success of the A2e initiative available at these laboratories. These national laboratories are engaging the wider wind energy stakeholder community (e.g., industry, other national labs, other government agencies, universities, international partners) to develop a multi-year strategic plan that addresses wind plant performance under the A2e initiative.

    Public Participation

    The event is open to the public based upon space availability. After the meeting has concluded DOE will also accept public comments on the meeting summary as described above for purposes of developing the A2e portfolio, but will not respond individually to comments received.

    Participants should limit information and comments to those based on personal experience, individual advice, information, or facts regarding this topic. It is not the object of this session to obtain any group position or consensus from the meeting participants. To most effectively use the limited time, please refrain from passing judgment on another participant's recommendations or advice, and instead, concentrate on your individual experiences.

    Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    Individuals requiring special accommodations at the meeting, please contact Samantha Rooney no later than the close of business on March 17, 2015.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 25, 2015. Jose Zayas, Director, Wind and Water Power Technologies Office, U.S. Department of Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04258 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2596-004.

    Applicants: Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm LLC.

    Description: Notification of Change in Status of Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm LLC.

    Filed Date: 2/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150224-5136.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-769-001.

    Applicants: Entergy Mississippi, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Settlement and Updated Reimbursement Agreement Under ER13-769 to be effective 12/19/2013.

    Filed Date: 1/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150123-5069.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-770-001.

    Applicants: Entergy Louisiana, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Settlement and Updated Reimbursement Agreement Under ER13-770 to be effective 12/19/2013.

    Filed Date: 1/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150123-5070.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1087-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., American Transmission Systems, Incorporated.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-02-24_SA 2748 ATC-Wisconsin Power and Light CFA to be effective 4/26/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150224-5114.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1088-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., American Transmission Systems, Incorporated.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-02-24_SA 765 Notice of Termination of Bill of Sale (ATC-WPL) to be effective 4/26/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150224-5130.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1089-000.

    Applicants: Amplified Power & Gas, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Cancellation of MBR Rate Schedule No. 1 of Amplified Power & Gas, LLC.

    Filed Date: 2/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150224-5141.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1093-000.

    Applicants: Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 4/26/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150224-5166.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/17/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA14-4-000.

    Applicants: Ashtabula Wind, LLC, Ashtabula Wind II, LLC, Ashtabula Wind III, LLC, Backbone Mountain Windpower, LLC, Baldwin Wind, LLC, Bayswater Peaking Facility, LLC, Blackwell Wind, LLC, Butler Ridge Wind Energy Center, LLC, Cimarron Wind Energy, LLC, Crystal Lake Wind, LLC, Crystal Lake Wind II, LLC, Crystal Lake Wind III, LLC, Day County Wind, LLC, Desert Sunlight 250, LLC, Desert Sunlight 300, LLC, Diablo Winds, LLC, Elk City Wind, LLC, Elk City II Wind, LLC, Energy Storage Holdings, LLC, Ensign Wind, LLC, ESI Vansycle Partners, L.P., Florida Power & Light Company, FPL Energy Burleigh County Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Cabazon Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Cape, LLC, FPL Energy Cowboy Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Green Power Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Hancock County Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Illinois Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Marcus Hook, L.P., FPL Energy MH50, L.P., FPL Energy Montezuma Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Mower County, LLC, FPL Energy New Mexico Wind, LLC, FPL Energy North Dakota Wind, LLC, FPL Energy North Dakota Wind II, LLC, FPL Energy Oklahoma Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Oliver Wind I, LLC, FPL Energy Oliver Wind II, LLC, FPL Energy Sooner Wind, LLC, FPL Energy South Dakota Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Stateline II, Inc., FPL Energy Vansycle, LLC, FPL Energy Wyman, LLC, FPL Energy Wyman IV, LLC, Garden Wind, LLC, Genesis Solar, LLC, Gray County Wind Energy, LLC, Hatch Solar Energy Center I, LLC, Hawkeye Power Partners, LLC, High Majestic Wind Energy Center, LLC, High Majestic Wind II, LLC, High Winds, LLC, Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC, Lake Benton Power Partners II, LLC, Langdon Wind, LLC, Limon Wind, LLC, Limon Wind II, LLC, Limon Wind III, LLC, Logan Wind Energy LLC, Mammoth Plains Wind Project, LLC, Mantua Creek Solar, LLC, Meyersdale Windpower LLC, Mill Run Windpower, LLC, Minco Wind, LLC, Minco Wind II, LLC, Minco Wind III, LLC, Minco Wind Interconnection Services, LLC, Mountain View Solar, LLC, NEPM II, LLC, NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, NextEra Energy Montezuma II Wind, LLC, NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, NextEra Energy Power Marketing, LLC, NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, NextEra Energy Services Massachusetts, LLC, Northeast Energy Associates, LP, North Jersey Energy Associates, a Limited Partnership, North Sky River Energy, LLC, Northern Colorado Wind Energy, LLC, Osceola Windpower, LLC, Osceola Windpower II, LLC, Palo Duro Wind Energy, LLC, Palo Duro Wind Interconnection Services, LLC, Paradise Solar Urban Renewal, L.L.C., Peetz Table Wind Energy, LLC, Pennsylvania Windfarms, LLC, Perrin Ranch Wind, LLC, Pheasant Run Wind, LLC, Red Mesa Wind, LLC, Seiling Wind, LLC, Seiling Wind II, LLC, Seiling Wind Interconnection Services, LLC, Sky River LLC, Somerset Windpower, LLC, Steele Flats Wind Project, LLC, Story Wind, LLC, Tuscola Bay Wind, LLC, Tuscola Wind II, LLC, Vasco Winds, LLC, Waymart Wind Farm, L.P., Wessington Wind Energy Center, LLC, White Oak Energy LLC, Wilton Wind II, LLC, Windpower Partners 1993, LLC.

    Description: Errata to February 9, 2015 Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of the NextEra Energy Companies.

    Filed Date: 02/23/2015.

    Accession Number: 20150223-5260.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/15.

    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.

    Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04242 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-77-000.

    Applicants: TriEagle Energy, LP, Crius Energy, LLC.

    Description: Joint Application for Authorization of Transaction Under Section 203 of TriEagle Energy, LP, et al.

    Filed Date: 2/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150223-5265.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG15-53-000.

    Applicants: Beethoven Wind, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Beethoven Wind, LLC as an Exempt Wholesale Generator.

    Filed Date: 2/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150224-5073.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/17/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-107-008.

    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Order 1000 Regional Compliance Filing 2-23-15 to be effective 4/19/2013.

    Filed Date: 2/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150223-5209.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1864-001.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: SPP-MISO JOA Market-to-Market Compliance Filing in ER13-1864 to be effective 3/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150223-5244.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-187-010.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: 2015-02-23_Regional Order 1000 Compliance Filing to be effective 6/1/2013.

    Filed Date: 2/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150223-5231.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-509-001.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Transmission Owner Selection Process Compliance Filing to be effective 1/26/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150223-5245.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1085-000.

    Applicants: Union Electric Company.

    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Notice of Cancellation of Rate Schedule No. 3 to be effective 4/30/2010.

    Filed Date: 2/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150223-5246.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/15.

    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: February 24, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04241 Filed 2-27-15; 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: ER13-738-003; ER11-3097-007; ER10-1329-006; ER10-1277-006; ER10-1212-006; ER10-1211-006; ER10-1188-006; ER10-1186-006.

    Applicants: DTE Electric Company, DTE Energy Trading, Inc., DTE River Rouge No. 1, LLC, DTE Energy Supply, Inc., DTE East China, LLC, DTE Pontiac North LLC, DTE Stoneman, LLC, St. Paul Cogeneration, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the DTE MBR Entities.

    Filed Date: 2/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150220-5253.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-198-007.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Compliance Filing per 1/22/15 Order in Docket Nos. ER13-198-004 to be effective 1/1/2014.

    Filed Date: 2/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150223-5189.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2477-006; ER87-592-001; ER14-1777-002; ER13-2476-006; ER13-2475-006; ER13-1485-003; ER12-192-009; ER11-4266-010; ER11-3867-011; ER11-3866-011; ER11-3864-012; ER11-3861-010; ER11-3859-011; ER11-3857-011; ER10-3310-007; ER10-3299-006; ER10-3253-003; ER10-3240-003; ER10-3239-003; ER10-3237-003; ER10-3233-002; ER10-3232-001; ER10-3231-002; ER10-3230-003; ER10-1946-009.

    Applicants: Brayton Point Energy, LLC, Broad River Energy LLC, Dighton Power, LLC, ELWOOD ENERGY LLC, Empire Generating Co, LLC, EquiPower Resources Management, LLC, Kincaid Generation, L.L.C., Lake Road Generating Company, L.P., Liberty Electric Power, LLC, MASSPOWER, Milford Power Company, LLC, Richland-Stryker Generation LLC, New Harquahala Generating Company, LLC, Millenium Power Partners, L.P., New Athens Generating Company, LLC, Wheelabrator Baltimore, L.P., Wheelabrator Bridgeport, L.P., Wheelabrator Falls Inc., Wheelabrator Frackville Energry Co. Inc., Wheelabrator Millbury Inc., Wheelabrator North Andover Inc., Wheelabrator Portsmouth Inc., Wheelabrator Ridge Energy Inc., Wheelabrator Saugus Inc., Wheelabrator Shasta Energy Co. Inc., Wheelabrator South Broward Inc., Wheelabrator Westchester L.P.

    Description: Supplement to January 20, 2015 Notice of Change in Status of the ECP MBR Sellers.

    Filed Date: 2/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150220-5240.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1082-000.

    Applicants: Westwood Generation, LLC.

    Description: Application for Limited Waiver of Westwood Generation, LLC.

    Filed Date: 2/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150220-5261.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1083-000.

    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): NYISO filing of SA No. 2205 between NiMo and Covanta Niagara to be effective 12/30/2014.

    Filed Date: 2/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150223-5106.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1084-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Duke Energy Florida, Inc., Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): OATT Attachment C Amendment to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 2/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150223-5197.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES15-12-000.

    Applicants: Northern Maine Independent System Administrator, Inc.

    Description: Application of Northern Maine Independent System Administrator, Inc. for Authorization to Issue Securities Pursuant to Section 204 of the Federal Power Act.

    Filed Date: 2/18/15.

    Accession Number: 20150218-5132.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/11/15.

    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 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: February 23, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04207 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. OR15-17-000] Marathon Pipe Line LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on February 18, 2015, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2014), Marathon Pipe Line LLC filed a petition for a declaratory order approving priority service and the overall rate structure and terms of service for an expansion of its crude oil pipeline from Patoka, Illinois to Lima, Ohio, all as more fully explained in the petition.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on March 18, 2015.

    Dated: February 24, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04240 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 13213-003; Project No. 13214-003] Lock 14 Hydro Partners, LLC and Lock 12 Hydro Partners, LLC; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the applications for original licenses for the Heidelberg Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 13213-003) and Ravenna Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 13214-003). The proposed projects would be located on the Kentucky River in Kentucky. The Heidelberg Project would be located at the Kentucky River Authority's Lock and Dam No. 14, near the Town of Heidelberg, Lee County, Kentucky. The Ravenna Project would be located at the Kentucky River Authority's Lock and Dam No. 12, near the Town of Ravenna, Estill County, Kentucky. No lands managed by the Federal government are located within the project boundary of either project.

    Staff prepared a multi-project environmental assessment (EA), which analyzes the potential environmental effects of licensing both projects, and concludes that licensing the projects, with appropriate environmental protection measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.

    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, contact FERC Online Support.

    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this notice.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. Please file 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. In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please affix “Heidelberg Hydroelectric Project No. 13213-003, and/or Ravenna Hydroelectric Project No. 13214-003” as appropriate to all comments.

    For further information, contact Michael Spencer at (202) 502-6093, or by email at [email protected]

    Dated: February 24, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04243 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PF15-7-000] Eagle LNG Partners Jacksonville LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Jacksonville Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will develop an environmental impact statement (EIS) examining the potential environmental effects of the Jacksonville Project (Project) involving the construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) production, storage, and export facility at a site on the St. Johns River in Jacksonville, Florida. The Commission will use this EIS in its decision-making process to determine whether to authorize the Project.

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the Project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EIS. Please note that the scoping period will close on March 26, 2015.

    You may submit comments in written form or verbally. Further details on how to submit written comments are in the Public Participation section of this notice. If you sent comments on this Project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on November 26, 2014, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. PF15-7-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding. In lieu of or in addition to sending written comments, the Commission invites you to attend the public scoping meeting scheduled as follows: FERC Public Scoping Meeting, Jacksonville Project, March 12, 2015; 7:00 p.m. EST, Jacksonville Public Library, 303 North Laura Street, Jacksonville, FL 32202.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this Project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this planned Project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    The purpose of this scoping meeting is to provide the public an opportunity to learn more about the Commission's environmental review process, and to verbally comment on the Project. The scoping meeting will start at 7 p.m. and representatives from Eagle LNG will be present one hour prior to the start of the meeting to answer questions about the Project. Additionally, Eagle LNG has established an Internet Web site at http://www.eaglelng.com/jacksonville-project/ that will be updated as the environmental review of its Project proceeds. Please note that free parking will be available at the Duval Street Parking Garage, located at 33 W. Duval Street. Metered street parking will also be available, and is free after 6 p.m.

    Affected landowners and interested groups and individuals are encouraged to attend the scoping meetings and present comments on the issues they believe should be addressed in the EIS. A transcript of the meeting will be added to the Commission's administrative record to ensure that your comments are accurately recorded.

    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.

    Summary of the Planned Project

    Eagle LNG proposes to construct, own and operate the Jacksonville LNG facility located within the City of Jacksonville, Florida, on industrially zoned land adjacent to the St. Johns River.

    The facility would receive domestically produced natural gas, transported through existing and expanded local utility pipelines, and utilize super-cooling to create LNG for temporary onsite storage. The Project would include three liquefaction trains, one (possibly two) LNG storage tanks, and a marine load-out facility and dock on the St. Johns River that could accommodate small to mid-size LNG vessels and bunkering barges. LNG would be periodically loaded for transport onto trucks, containers, or ocean-going vessels, and marketed for use in U.S. vehicular and high-horsepower engines, domestic ship fueling (marine bunkering), and international export.

    As currently planned, the Jacksonville Project would consist of the following facilities:

    • Three liquefaction trains, each with a capacity of 0.18 million tons per annum;

    • inlet natural gas boost compression;

    • interconnect piping (including potential non-jurisdictional expansion of existing public utility lines);

    • one 30,283 cubic meter (m3) single containment LNG storage tank;

    • an LNG vessel docking and loading terminal;

    • an LNG truck loading area;

    • flare stack; and

    • power, water, and communications facilities (including off-site non-jurisdictional facilities leading to the Project site).

    The general location of the Project site is shown in Appendix 1.1

    1 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov using the link called “eLibrary” or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.

    Land Requirements for Construction

    The planned Jacksonville Project would encompass a 193 acre site along the St. Johns River that is currently zoned for industrial development by the City of Jacksonville, and located in an area that hosts other bulk fuel terminals. The Project site includes a submerged land lease covering lands extending approximately 600 feet from the shoreline into the St. Johns River. Based on the Project's initial design, the facility construction footprint would occupy approximately 40 of the 193 acres; laydown area requirements during construction are included within the 40-acres. Eagle LNG is still in the planning phase for the Jacksonville Project and the required property title assignments have not been finalized.

    The EIS 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 authorization of LNG facilities under Section 3a of the Natural Gas Act. NEPA also requires us 2 to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EIS. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EIS.

    2 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.

    In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned Project under these general headings:

    • Geology and soils;

    • land use;

    • water resources and wetlands;

    • cultural resources;

    • vegetation, fisheries, and wildlife;

    • socioeconomics;

    • air quality and noise;

    • endangered and threatened species;

    • public safety and reliability; and

    • cumulative impacts.

    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned Project or portions of the Project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EIS. In addition, representatives from the FERC participated in the public open house sponsored by Eagle LNG in Jacksonville, Florida in January 2015 to explain the environmental review process and answer questions to interested stakeholders.

    The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We will publish and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the comment period, we will consider all timely comments and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning on page 6 of this notice.

    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this Project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EIS.3 Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice. Currently, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) have expressed their intention to participate as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS.

    3 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6.

    Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the Florida State Division of Historical Resources (State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)), and to solicit its 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 SHPO as the Project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction area, contractor storage yards, and access roads). Our EIS 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 for Historic Places.

    Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and the environmental information provided by Eagle LNG. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our continued analysis. Issued identified include:

    • Potential impacts on recreational fishing and aquatic resources in the vicinity of Bartram Island and along the St Johns River Shipping Channel;

    • potential water quality impact from dredging and disposal;

    • visual effects on surrounding areas;

    • public safety and hazards associated with the transport of natural gas and LNG; and

    • potential impacts and potential benefits of construction workforce on local housing, infrastructure, public services, and economy.

    Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. 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 March 26, 2015. This is not your only public input opportunity; please refer to the Environmental Review Process flowchart in Appendix 2.

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number (PF15-7-000) 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]

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp) feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp). This is an easy method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp) feature located 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.” (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/eregistration.asp). You must select the type of filing you are making. If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing”; 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.

    Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the Project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned Project.

    Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (Appendix 3).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Eagle LNG files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the “Document-less Intervention Guide” under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Motions to intervene are more fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/help/how-to/intervene.asp. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives a formal application for the Project.

    Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF15-7). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: February 24, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04206 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. NJ15-4-001] Orlando Utilities Commission; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on February 19, 2015, the Orlando Utilities Commission submitted its tariff filing per 35.28(e): Amendment to its Order No. 1000 Regional Compliance Filings, to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 23, 2015.

    Dated: February 24, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04239 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14661-000] Adam Robert Rousselle, II; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On February 5, 2015, Adam Robert Rousselle, II filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Nockamixon Dam Water Power Project (project) to be located on Tohickon Creek, in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.

    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) The existing Nockamixon dam, which is 1,511 feet long and approximately 112 feet high discharging into Tohickon Creek; (2) Nockamixon dam impounds a reservoir of 40,000 acre-feet with a surface area of 1,450 acres, at a pool elevation of 395.0 feet mean sea level; (3) a proposed reinforced concrete powerhouse housing three pump turbine generating units with a total installed capacity of 150 kilowatts; (4) a proposed 826-foot-long, 34.5-kilovolt primary transmission line connected to Metropolitan Edison Company; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation of the project would be 834,000 kilowatthours.

    Applicant Contact: Mr. Adam Robert Rousselle, II, 104 Autumn Trace Drive, New Hope, PA 18938, phone: 215-485-1708.

    FERC Contact: Tim Looney; phone: (202) 502-6096.

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-14661-000.

    More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-14661) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: February 24, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04244 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES [Public Notice: 2015-0707] Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    Export-Import Bank of the United States.

    ACTION:

    Submission for OMB review and comments request.

    Form Title: EIB 92-64 Application for Exporter Short Term Single Buyer Insurance.

    SUMMARY:

    The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is requesting an emergency approval for form EIB 92-64, Application for Exporter Short Term Single Buyer Insurance, in order to enhance the identification and classification of small businesses, as well as minority-, woman-, and veteran-owned businesses. The Bank will subsequently proceed with the regular authorization request for this form as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    The “Application for Exporter Short Term Single Buyer Insurance” form will be used by entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services, to provide Ex-Im Bank with the information necessary to obtain legislatively required assurance of repayment and fulfills other statutory requirements. Export-Import Bank customers will be able to submit this form on paper or electronically.

    The Export-Import Bank has made a change to the report to have the applicant provide the number of employees or annual sales volume. That information is needed to determine whether or not they meet the SBA's definition of a small business. The applicant already provides their name, address and industry code (NAICS). These additional pieces of information will allow Ex-Im Bank to better track the extent to which its support assists U.S. small businesses.

    The other change that Ex-Im Bank has made is to require the applicant to indicate whether it is a minority-owned business, women-owned business and/or veteran-owned business. Although answers to the questions are mandatory, the company may choose any one of the three answers: Yes/No/Decline to Answer. The option of “Decline to Answer” allows a company to consciously decline to answer the specific question should they not wish to provide that information.

    The application can be reviewed at: www.exim.gov/pub/pending/EIB92-64.pdf

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before March 9, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted electronically on www.regulations.gov or by mail to Michele Kuester, Export-Import Bank of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave. NW. Washington, DC 20571

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title and Form Number: EIB 92-64 Application for Exporter Short Term Single Buyer Insurance.

    OMB Number: 3048-0018.

    Type of Review: Emergency.

    Need and Use: The information requested enables the applicant to provide Ex-Im Bank with the information necessary to obtain legislatively required assurance of repayment and fulfills other statutory requirements.

    Affected Public

    This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.

    Annual Number of Respondents: 310.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 1.5 hours.

    Annual Burden Hours: 465 hours.

    Frequency of Reporting of Use: As needed.

    Government Costs

    Reviewing time per year: 465 hours.

    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.

    Average Cost per Year (time*wages): $19,762.5.

    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.

    Total Government Cost: $23,715.

    Bonita Jones-McNeil, Agency Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04220 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
    EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES [Public Notice 2015-0704] Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    Export-Import Bank of the United States.

    ACTION:

    Submission for OMB review and comments request.

    Form Title: EIB 92-36 Application for Issuing Bank Credit Limit (IBCL) Under Lender or Exporter-Held Policies.

    SUMMARY:

    The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is requesting an emergency approval for form EIB 92-36, Application for Issuing Bank Credit Limit (IBCL) Under Lender or Exporter-Held Policies, in order to enhance the identification and classification of small businesses, as well as minority-, woman-, and veteran-owned businesses. The Bank will subsequently proceed with the regular authorization request for this form as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    This collection of information is necessary, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Sec. 635(a)(1), to determine eligibility of the applicant for Ex-Im Bank assistance.

    The Export-Import Bank has made a change to the report to have the financial institution provide specific information (industry code, number of employees and annual sales volume) needed to make a determination as to whether or not the exporter meets the SBA's definition of a small business. The financial institution already provides the exporter's name and address. These additional pieces of information will allow Ex-Im Bank to better track the extent to which its support assists U.S. small businesses.

    The other change that Ex-Im Bank has made is to require the financial institution to indicate whether the exporter is a minority-owned business, women-owned business and/or veteran-owned business. Although answers to the questions are mandatory, the company may choose any one of the three answers: Yes/No/Decline to Answer. The option of “Decline to Answer” allows a company to consciously decline to answer the specific question should they not wish to provide that information.

    The application tool can be reviewed at: http://www.exim.gov/pub/pending/eib92-36.pdf.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before March 9, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted electronically on www.regulations.gov or by mail to Michele Kuester, Export-Import Bank of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20571.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title and Form Number: EIB 92-36 Application for Issuing Bank Credit Limit (IBCL) Under Lender or Exporter-Held Policies.

    OMB Number: 3048-0016.

    Type of Review: Emergency.

    Need and Use: This form is used by an insured exporter or lender (or broker acting on its behalf) in order to obtain approval for coverage of the repayment risk of an overseas bank. The information received allows Ex-Im Bank staff to make a determination of the creditworthiness of the foreign bank and the underlying export sale for Ex-Im Bank assistance under its programs.

    Affected Public

    This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.

    Annual Number of Respondents: 480.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 1.2 hours.

    Annual Burden Hours: 576 hours.

    Frequency of Reporting of Use: As needed

    Government Expenses

    Reviewing time per year: 480 hours.

    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.

    Average Cost per Year: $20,400.

    (time*wages)

    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.

    Total Government Cost: $24,480.

    Bonita Jones-McNeil, Agency Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04195 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
    EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES [Public Notice 2015-0708] Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    Export-Import Bank of the U.S.

    ACTION:

    Submission for OMB review and comments request.

    Form Title: EIB 95-10, Application for Long Term Loan or Guarantee.

    SUMMARY:

    The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is requesting an emergency approval for form EIB 95-10, Application for Long Term Loan or Guarantee, in order to enhance the identification and classification of small businesses, as well as minority-, woman-, and veteran-owned businesses. The Bank will subsequently proceed with the regular authorization request for this form as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    By neutralizing the effect of export credit insurance and guarantees offered by foreign governments and by absorbing credit risks that the private sector will not accept, Ex-Im Bank enables U.S. exporters to compete fairly in foreign markets on the basis of price and product. This collection of information is necessary, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Sec. 635(a)(1), to determine eligibility of the applicant for Ex-Im Bank support.

    The Export-Import Bank has made a change to the report to have the financial institution provide specific information (industry code, number of employees and annual sales volume) needed to make a determination as to whether or not the exporter meets the SBA's definition of a small business. The financial institution already provides the exporter's name and address. These additional pieces of information will allow Ex-Im Bank to better track the extent to which its support assists U.S. small businesses.

    The other change that Ex-Im Bank has made is to require the financial institution to indicate whether the exporter is a minority-owned business, women-owned business and/or veteran-owned business. Although answers to the questions are mandatory, the company may choose any one of the three answers: Yes/No/Decline to Answer. The option of “Decline to Answer” allows a company to consciously decline to answer the specific question should they not wish to provide that information.

    The application can be viewed at www.exim.gov/pub/pending/eib95-10all.pdf

    DATES:

    Comments should be received on or before March 9, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted electronically on www.regulations.gov or by mail to Michele Kuester, Export Import Bank of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20571.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Titles and Form Number: EIB 95-10 Application for Long Term Loan or Guarantee.

    OMB Number: 3048-0013.

    Type of Review: Emergency.

    Need and Use: The information collected will provide information needed to determine compliance and creditworthiness for transaction requests submitted to the Export Import Bank under its long term guarantee and direct loan programs.

    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.

    Annual Number of Respondents: 84.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 1.75 hours.

    Annual Burden Hours: 147 hours.

    Frequency of Reporting or Use: As needed.

    Government Expenses:

    Reviewing Time per Year: 147 hours.

    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.

    Average Cost per Year: $6,248 (time*wages).

    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.

    Total Government Cost: $7,498.

    Bonita Jones-McNeil, Agency Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04191 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
    EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES [Public Notice 2015-0701] Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    Export-Import Bank of the U.S.

    ACTION:

    Submission for OMB review and comments request.

    Form Title: EIB 03-02, Application for Medium Term Insurance or Guarantee.

    SUMMARY:

    The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is requesting an emergency approval for form EIB 03-02, Application for Medium Term Insurance or Guarantee, in order to enhance the identification and classification of small businesses, as well as minority-, woman-, and veteran-owned businesses. The Bank will subsequently proceed with the regular authorization request for this form as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    The purpose of this collection is to gather information necessary to make a determination of eligibility of a transaction for Ex-Im Bank assistance under its medium-term guarantee and insurance program.

    The Export-Import Bank has made a change to the report to have the financial institution provide specific information (industry code, number of employees and annual sales volume) needed to make a determination as to whether or not the exporter meets the SBA's definition of a small business. The financial institution already provides the exporter's name and address. These additional pieces of information will allow Ex-Im Bank to better track the extent to which its support assists U.S. small businesses.

    The other change that Ex-Im Bank has made is to require the financial institution to indicate whether the exporter is a minority-owned business, women-owned business and/or veteran-owned business. Although answers to the questions are mandatory, the company may choose any one of the three answers: Yes/No/Decline to Answer. The option of “Decline to Answer” allows a company to consciously decline to answer the specific question should they not wish to provide that information.

    The form can be viewed at: http://www.exim.gov/pub/pending/eib03-02.pdf

    DATES:

    Comments should be received on or before March 9, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted electronically on http://www.regulations.gov (EIB:03-02) or by mail to Michele Kuester, Export-Import Bank of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20571.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Titles and Form Number: EIB 03-02, Application for Medium Term Insurance or Guarantee.

    OMB Number: 3048-0014.

    Type of Review: Emergency.

    Need and Use: The purpose of this collection is to gather information necessary to make a determination of eligibility of a transaction for Ex-Im Bank assistance under its medium-term guarantee and insurance program.

    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.

    Annual Number of Respondents: 400.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 1.2 hour.

    Annual Burden Hours: 480 hours.

    Frequency of Reporting or Use: As needed.

    Government Expenses

    Reviewing Time per Year: 700 hours.

    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.

    Average Cost per Year: $29,750 (time*wages).

    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.

    Total Government Cost: $35,700.

    Bonita Jones-McNeil, Records Management Division, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04190 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
    EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES [Public Notice 2015-0703] Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    Export-Import Bank of the United States.

    ACTION:

    Submission for OMB review and comments request.

    Form Title: EIB 92-30 Report of Premiums Payable for Financial Institutions Only.

    SUMMARY:

    The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is requesting an emergency approval for form EIB 92-30, Report of Premiums Payable for Financial Institutions Only, in order to enhance the identification and classification of small businesses, as well as minority-, woman-, and veteran-owned businesses. The Bank will subsequently proceed with the regular authorization request for this form as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    This collection of information is necessary, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Sec. 635(a)(1), to determine eligibility of the export sales for insurance coverage. The Report of Premiums Payable for Financial Institutions Only is used to determine the eligibility of the shipment(s) and to calculate the premium due to Ex-Im Bank for its support of the shipment(s) under its insurance program. Export-Import Bank customers will be able to submit this form on paper or electronically.

    The Export-Import Bank has made a change to the report to have the insured financial institution provide the industry code (NAICS) associated with each specific export as well as specific information needed to make a determination as to whether or not the exporter meets the SBA's definition of a small business. The insured financial institution already provides a short description of the goods and/or services being exported and the name and address of the exporter. These additional pieces of information will allow Ex-Im Bank to better track what exports it is covering with its insurance policy and the extent to which its support assists U.S. small businesses.

    The other change that Ex-Im Bank has made is to require the insured financial institution to indicate whether the exporter is a minority-owned business, women-owned business and/or veteran-owned business. Although answers to the question are mandatory, the company may choose any one of the three answers: Yes/No/Decline to Answer. The option of “Decline to Answer” allows a company to consciously decline to answer the specific question should they not wish to answer.

    The information collection tool can be reviewed at: http://www.exim.gov/pub/pending/eib92-30.pdf

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before March 9, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted electronically on www.regulations.gov or by mail to Michele Kuester, Export-Import Bank of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20571.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title and Form Number: EIB 92-30 Report of Premiums Payable for Financial Institutions Only.

    OMB Number: 3048-0021.

    Type of Review: Emergency.

    Need and Use: This collection of information is necessary, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Sec. 635(a)(1), to determine eligibility of the applicant for Ex-Im Bank assistance. The information collected enables Ex-Im Bank to determine the eligibility of the shipment(s) for insurance and to calculate the premium due to Ex-Im Bank for its support of the shipment(s) under its insurance program.

    Affected Public

    This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.

    Annual Number of Respondents: 215.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 30 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 1,290 hours.

    Frequency of Reporting of Use: Monthly.

    Government Expenses

    Reviewing time per year: 860 hours.

    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.

    Average Cost per Year (time*wages): $36,550.

    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.

    Total Government Cost: $43,860.

    Bonita Jones-McNeil, Agency Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04196 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
    EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES [Public Notice: 2015-0702] Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    Export-Import Bank of the United States.

    ACTION:

    Submission for OMB review and comments request.

    Form Title: EIB 10-02 Application for Short-Term Express Credit Insurance Policy.

    SUMMARY:

    The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is requesting an emergency approval for form EIB 10-02, Application for Short-Term Express Credit Insurance Policy, in order to enhance the identification and classification of small businesses, as well as minority-, woman-, and veteran-owned businesses. The Bank will subsequently proceed with the regular authorization request for this form as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    This collection of information is necessary, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Sec. 635(a)(1), to determine eligibility of the applicant for Ex-Im Bank assistance.

    The Export-Import Bank has made a change to the report to have the applicant provide the number of employees or annual sales volume. That information is needed to determine whether or not they meet the SBA's definition of a small business. The applicant already provides their name, address and industry code (NAICS). These additional pieces of information will allow Ex-Im Bank to better track the extent to which its support assists U.S. small businesses.

    The other change that Ex-Im Bank has made is to require the applicant to indicate whether it is a minority-owned business, women-owned business and/or veteran-owned business. Although answers to the questions are mandatory, the company may choose any one of the three answers: Yes/No/Decline to Answer. The option of “Decline to Answer” allows a company to consciously decline to answer the specific question should they not wish to provide that information.

    The application tool can be reviewed at: http://exim.gov/pub/pending/eib10_02.pdf.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before March 9, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted electronically on www.regulations.gov or by mail to Michele Kuester, Export-Import Bank of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20571.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title and Form Number: EIB 10-02 Application for Short-Term Express Credit Insurance Policy.

    OMB Number: 3048-0031.

    Type of Review: Emergency.

    Need and Use: This form is used by an exporter (or broker acting on its behalf) in order to obtain approval for coverage of the repayment risk of export sales. The information received allows Ex-Im Bank staff to make a determination of the eligibility of the applicant and the creditworthiness of one of the applicant's foreign buyers for Ex-Im Bank assistance under its programs.

    Affected Public

    This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.

    Annual Number of Respondents: 500.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 0.25 hours.

    Annual Burden Hours: 125 hours.

    Frequency of Reporting of Use: Once per year.

    Government Expenses

    Reviewing time per year: 1,000 hours.

    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.

    Average Cost per Year: $42,250.

    (time*wages)

    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.

    Total Government Cost: $ 51,000.

    Bonita Jones-McNeil, Agency Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04197 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
    EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES [Public Notice 2015-0705] Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    Export-Import Bank of the United States.

    ACTION:

    Submission for OMB review and comments request.

    Form Title: EIB 92-41 Application for Financial Institution Short-Term, Single-Buyer Insurance.

    SUMMARY:

    The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is requesting an emergency approval for form EIB 92-41, Application for Financial Institution Short-Term, Single-Buyer Insurance, in order to enhance the identification and classification of small businesses, as well as minority-, woman-, and veteran-owned businesses. The Bank will subsequently proceed with the regular authorization request for this form as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    This collection of information is necessary, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Sec. 635(a)(1), to determine eligibility of the underlying export transaction for Ex-Im Bank insurance coverage.

    The Export-Import Bank has made a change to the report to have the insured financial institution provide specific information (industry code, number of employees and annual sales volume) needed to make a determination as to whether or not the exporter meets the SBA's definition of a small business. The insured financial institution already provides a short description of the goods and/or services being exported and the name and address of the exporter. These additional pieces of information will allow Ex-Im Bank to better track the extent to which its support assists U.S. small businesses.

    The other change that Ex-Im Bank has made is to require the insured financial institution to indicate whether the exporter is a minority-owned business, women-owned business and/or veteran-owned business. Although answers to the questions are mandatory, the company may choose any one of the three answers: Yes/No/Decline to Answer. The option of “Decline to Answer” allows a company to consciously decline to answer the specific question should they not wish to answer.

    The information collection tool can be reviewed at: http://www.exim.gov/pub/pending/EIB92-41.pdf.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before March 9, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted electronically on www.regulations.gov or by mail to Michele Kuester, Export-Import Bank of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20571.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title and Form Number: EIB 92-41 Application for Financial Institution Short-Term, Single-Buyer Insurance.

    OMB Number: 3048-0019.

    Type of Review: Emergency.

    Need and Use: The “Application for Financial Institution Short-term Single-Buyer Insurance” form will be used by financial institution applicants to provide Ex-Im Bank with the information necessary to determine if the subject transaction is eligible for Ex-Im Bank insurance coverage.

    Affected Public

    This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.

    Annual Number of Respondents: 215.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 1.6 hours.

    Annual Burden Hours: 344.

    Frequency of Reporting of Use: Annual.

    Government Expenses

    Reviewing time per year: 1,290 hours.

    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.

    Average Cost per Year (time*wages): $54,825.

    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.

    Total Government Cost: $70,176.

    Bonita Jones-McNeil, Agency Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04194 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
    EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES [Public Notice 2015-0706] Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    Export-Import Bank of the United States.

    ACTION:

    Submission for OMB review and comments request.

    Form Title: EIB 92-50 Short-Term Multi-Buyer Export Credit Insurance Policy Applications (ST Multi-Buyer).

    SUMMARY:

    The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is requesting an emergency approval for form EIB 92-50, Short-Term Multi-Buyer Export Credit Insurance Policy Applications (ST Multi-Buyer), in order to enhance the identification and classification of small businesses, as well as minority-, woman-, and veteran-owned businesses. The Bank will subsequently proceed with the regular authorization request for this form as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    This collection of information is necessary, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Sec. 635(a)(1), to determine eligibility of the applicant for Ex-Im Bank assistance.

    The Application for Short-Term Multi-Buyer Export Credit Insurance Policy will be used to determine the eligibility of the applicant and the transaction for Export-Import Bank assistance under its insurance program. Export-Import Bank customers will be able to submit this form on paper or electronically.

    The Export-Import Bank has made a change to the report to have the applicant provide their number of employees or annual sales volume. That information is needed to determine whether or not they meet the SBA's definition of a small business. The applicant already provides their name, address and industry code (NAICS). These additional pieces of information will allow Ex-Im Bank to better track the extent to which its support assists U.S. small businesses.

    The other change that Ex-Im Bank has made is to require the applicant to indicate whether it is a minority-owned business, women-owned business and/or veteran-owned business. Although answers to the questions are mandatory, the company may choose any one of the three answers: Yes/No/Decline to Answer. The option of “Decline to Answer” allows a company to consciously decline to answer the specific question should they not wish to provide that information.

    The application tool can be reviewed at: http://www.exim.gov/pub/pending/eib92-50.pdf.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before March 9, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted electronically on www.regulations.gov or by mail to Michele Kuester, Export-Import Bank of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20571.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title and Form Number: EIB 92-50 Export-Import Bank of the United States Short-Term Multi-Buyer Export Credit Insurance Policy Applications (ST Multi-Buyer).

    OMB Number: 3048-0023.

    Type of Review: Emergency.

    Need and Use: The Application for Short-Term Multi-Buyer Export Credit Insurance Policy will be used to determine the eligibility of the applicant and the transaction for Export-Import Bank assistance under its insurance program.

    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.

    Annual Number of Respondents: 285.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 0.5 hours.

    Annual Burden Hours: 143.

    Frequency of Reporting of Use: As needed.

    Government Reviewing Time per Year:

    Reviewing time per year: 285 hours.

    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.

    Average Cost per Year (time*wages): $12,113.

    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.

    Total Government Cost: $15,504.

    Bonita Jones-McNeil, Agency Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04193 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [3060-0174] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 1, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0174.

    Title: Sections 73.1212, 76.1615 and 76.1715, Sponsorship Identification.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents/Affected Parties: Business or other for profit entities; Individuals or households.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 22,900 respondents and 1,877,000 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .0011 to .2011 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; Third party disclosure requirement; On occasion reporting requirement.

    Total Annual Burden: 249,043 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $34,623.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in sections 4(i), 317 and 507 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The FCC is preparing a system of records, FCC/MB-2, “Broadcast Station Public Inspection Files,” to cover the personally identifiable information (PII) that may be included in the broadcast station public inspection files. Respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Privacy Impact Assessment(s): The FCC is preparing a PIA.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirements that are approved under this collection are as follows:

    47 CFR 73.1212 requires a broadcast station to identify at the time of broadcast the sponsor of any matter for which consideration is provided. For advertising commercial products or services, generally the mention of the name of the product or service constitutes sponsorship identification. In the case of television political advertisements concerning candidates for public office, the sponsor shall be identified with letters equal to or greater than four (4) percent of the vertical height of the television screen that airs for no less than four (4) seconds. In addition, when an entity rather than an individual sponsors the broadcast of matter that is of a political or controversial nature, licensee is required to retain a list of the executive officers, or board of directors, or executive committee, etc., of the organization paying for such matter. Sponsorship announcements are waived with respect to the broadcast of “want ads” sponsored by an individual but the licensee shall maintain a list showing the name, address and telephone number of each such advertiser. These lists shall be made available for public inspection.

    47 CFR 73.1212(e) states that, when an entity rather than an individual sponsors the broadcast of matter that is of a political or controversial nature, the licensee is required to retain a list of the executive officers, or board of directors, or executive committee, etc., of the organization paying for such matter in its public file. Pursuant to the changes contained in 47 CFR 73.1212(e) and 47 CFR 73.3526(e)(19), this list, which could contain personally identifiable information, would be located in a public inspection file to be located on the Commission's Web site instead of being maintained in the public file at the station. Burden estimates for this change are included in OMB Control Number 3060-0214.

    47 CFR 76.1615 states that, when a cable operator engaged in origination cablecasting presents any matter for which money, service or other valuable consideration is provided to such cable television system operator, the cable television system operator, at the time of the telecast, shall identify the sponsor. Under this rule section, when advertising commercial products or services, an announcement stating the sponsor's corporate or trade name, or the name of the sponsor's product is sufficient when it is clear that the mention of the name of the product constitutes a sponsorship identification. In the case of television political advertisements concerning candidates for public office, the sponsor shall be identified with letters equal to or greater than four (4) percent of the vertical height of the television screen that airs for no less than four (4) seconds.

    47 CFR 76.1715 state that, with respect to sponsorship announcements that are waived when the broadcast/origination cablecast of “want ads” sponsored by an individual, the licensee/operator shall maintain a list showing the name, address and telephone number of each such advertiser. These lists shall be made available for public inspection.

    Federal Communications Commission. Sheryl D. Todd, Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Managing Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04186 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0633 and 3060-1155] Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before April 1, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain>, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0633.

    Title: 73.1230, 74.165, 74.432, 74.564, 74.664, 74.765, 74.832, 74.1265, Posting or Filing of Station License.

    Form No.: Not applicable.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit Institutions; Federal Government and State, local or tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,784 respondents and 2,784 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.083 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, recordkeeping requirement, and third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Section 154(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 231 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $24,860.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general there is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: On June 2, 2014, the Commission released a Second Report and Order, FCC 14-62, WT Docket Nos. 08-166 and 08-167 and ET Docket No. 10-24, “Revisions to Rules Authorizing the Operation of Low Power Auxiliary Stations in the 698-806 MHz Band.” This order expanded eligibility for low power auxiliary station licenses under Part 74 by adding two new categories of eligible entities: “large venue owner or operator” and “professional sound company.” To be eligible for a Part 74 license, a large venue owner or operator and a professional sound company must routinely use 50 or more low power auxiliary station devices, where the use of such devices is an integral part of major events or productions.

    The Commission seeks OMB approval for a revision of this currently approved information collection to increase the number of respondents by 200 and the number of responses by 200 to reflect the estimated increase in licensed low power auxiliary station operators who will be subject to the requirement at section 74.832(j) to retain the station license in the licensee's files or post it at the transmitter or control point of the stations.

    OMB Control No.: 3060-1155.

    Title: Sections 15.713, 15.714, 15.715 and 15.717, TV White Space Broadcast Bands.

    Form No.: Not Applicable.

    Type of Review: Revision of an existing collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; not-for-profit institutions; Federal government; and state, local or tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,000 respondents and 2,000 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2.0 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, recordkeeping requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154(1), 302, 303(c), 303(f), and 307.

    Total Annual Burden: 4,000 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $100,000.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission is not requesting respondents to submit confidential information to the Commission. Respondents may request confidential treatment of such information under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: On June 2, 2014, the Commission released a Second Report and Order, FCC 14-62, WT Docket Nos. 08-166 and 08-167 and ET Docket No. 10-24, “Revisions to Rules Authorizing the Operation of Low Power Auxiliary Stations in the 698-806 MHz Band.” This order expanded eligibility for low power auxiliary station licenses under Part 74 by adding two new categories of eligible entities: “Large venue owner or operator” and “professional sound company.” The Commission is now requesting OMB approval for a revision of this information collection to increase by 200 the number of licensed low power auxiliary station operators who will be able to register in the database under 47 CFR 15.713(h)(8) to reflect the estimated number of entities that will become eligible for a license under the Second Report and Order and which will register in the database. Because these newly-eligible licensees would likely have been able to register on an unlicensed basis under 47 CFR 15.713(h)(9) (and now will register as licensees instead), the Commission is also decreasing by 200 the number of unlicensed low power auxiliary station operators who will register in the database on an unlicensed basis under 47 CFR 15.713 (h)(9).

    The Commission seeks Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a revised information collection for an increase in the number of LPAS licensees that will register under 47 CFR 15.713(h)(8) and a decrease in the number of unlicensed wireless microphone users that will register on an unlicensed basis under 47 CFR 15.713(h)(9).

    Federal Communications Commission. Sheryl D. Todd, Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Managing Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04157 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-xxxx] Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before April 1, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain>, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-xxxx.

    Title: Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: New collection.

    Respondents: Individuals or households, business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions and State, local or Tribal governments.

    Number of Respondents: 1,350 respondents; 3,597 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .5 hours to 1 hour.

    Frequency of Response: Third-party disclosure reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 201, 301, 303, and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 6003, 6213, and 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 157, 201, 301, 303, 309, 1403, 1433, and 1455(a).

    Total Annual Burden: 3,535 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: None.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: This information collection may affect individuals or households. However, the information collection consists of third-party disclosures in which the Commission has no direct involvement. Personally identifiable information (PII) is not being collected by, made available to, or made accessible by the Commission. There are no additional impacts under the Privacy Act.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: No known confidentiality between third parties.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission is requesting OMB approval for new disclosure requirements pertaining to Subpart CC of Part 1 of the Commission's rules. This Subpart was adopted to implement and enforce Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. Section 6409(a) provides, in part, that “a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.” 47 U.S.C. 1455(a)(1). In Subpart CC, the Commission adopted definitions of ambiguous terms, procedural requirements, and remedies to provide guidance to all stakeholders on the proper interpretation of the provision and to enforce its requirements, reducing delays in the review process for wireless infrastructure modifications and facilitating the rapid deployment of wireless infrastructure.

    The following are the information collection requirements in connection with Subpart CC of Part 1 of the Commission's rules:

    • 47 CFR 1.40001(c)(3)(i)—To toll the 60-day review timeframe on grounds that an application is incomplete, the reviewing State or local government must provide written notice to the applicant within 30 days of receipt of the application, clearly and specifically delineating all missing documents or information. Such delineated information is limited to documents or information meeting the standard under paragraph (c)(1) of Section 1.140001.

    • 47 CFR 1.140001(c)(3)(iii)—Following a supplemental submission from the applicant, the State or local government will have 10 days to notify the applicant in writing if the supplemental submission did not provide the information identified in the State or local government's original notice delineating missing information. The timeframe for review is tolled in the case of second or subsequent notices of incompleteness pursuant to the procedures identified in paragraph (c)(3). Second or subsequent notices of incompleteness may not specify missing documents or information that were not delineated in the original notice of incompleteness.

    • 47 CFR 1.140001(c)(4)—If a request is deemed granted because of a failure to timely approve or deny the request, the deemed grant does not become effective until the applicant notifies the applicable reviewing authority in writing after the review period has expired (accounting for any tolling) that the application has been deemed granted.

    These collections are necessary to effectuate the rule changes that implement and enforce the requirements of Section 6409(a).

    Federal Communications Commission. Sheryl D. Todd, Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Managing Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04156 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0580] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 1, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0580.

    Title: Section 76.1710, Operator Interests in Video Programming.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,500 respondents; 1,500 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 15 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 Section 154(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 22,500 hours.

    Total Annual Costs: None.

    Privacy Impact Assessment(s): No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality and respondents are not being asked to submit confidential information to the Commission.

    Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 76.1710 requires cable operators to maintain records in their public file for a period of three years regarding the nature and extent of their attributable interests in all video programming services. The records must be made available to members of the public, local franchising authorities and the Commission on reasonable notice and during regular business hours. The records will be reviewed by local franchising authorities and the Commission to monitor compliance with channel occupancy limits in respective local franchise areas.

    Federal Communications Commission. Sheryl D. Todd, Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Managing Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04187 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [3060-1003] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 1, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Benish Shah, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact [email protected], (202) 418-7866.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1003.

    Title: Communications Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS).

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions; and/or State, local or tribal governments.

    Number of Respondents: 4,500 respondents; 39,500 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.1 hours to 0.5 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Voluntary. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47. U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 218 and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 5,950 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: None.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In accordance with 47 CFR 0.408.

    Needs and Uses: In response to the events of September 11, 2001, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) created an Emergency Contact Information System to assist the Commission in ensuring rapid restoration of communications capabilities after disruption by a terrorist threat or attack, and to ensure that public safety, public health, and other emergency and defense personnel have effective communications services available to them in the immediate aftermath of any terrorist attack within the United States. The Commission submitted, and OMB approved, a collection through which key communications providers could voluntarily provide contact information.

    The Commission's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) developed the Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS) that uses electronic forms to collect Emergency Contact Information forms and through which participants may inform the Commission of damage to communications infrastructure and facilities due to major emergencies and may request resources for restoration. The Commission updated the process by increasing the number of reporting entities to ensure inclusion of wireless, wireline, broadcast, cable, VoIP, and broadband Internet access communications providers. The Commission is requesting a renewal of the currently approved collection. It is imperative that the Disaster Information Reporting System be in place so that the Commission has an accurate picture of the communications landscape during disasters.

    Legal authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 218, 303(r) and 47 CFR 0.181(h).

    Federal Communications Commission Sheryl D. Todd, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04185 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission

    DATE AND TIME:

    Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

    STATUS:

    This Meeting Will Be Open To The Public.

    ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

    Correction and Approval of Minutes for February 12, 2015 Draft Advisory Opinion 2014-20: Make Your Laws PAC, Inc. Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on the Republican Party of Orange County (Federal) (RPOC) (A11-23) Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on the South Dakota Democratic Party (SDDP) (A11-20) Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on the Kentucky State Democratic Central Executive Committee (KDC) (A12-05) Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on the 2012 Democratic National Convention Committee, Inc. Management and Administrative Matters

    Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.

    PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04374 Filed 2-26-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than March 16, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:

    1. Jeffrey Ball Family Control Group consisting of Jeffrey Ball, Nicholasville, Kentucky, Amber Ball, Nicholasville, Kentucky, Scott Haga, Lexington, Kentucky and Amy Haga, Lexington, Kentucky; to retain and acquire 10 percent or more of the outstanding shares and thereby control of Citizens Commerce Bancshares, Versailles, Kentucky. Citizens Commerce Bancshares controls Citizens Commerce National Bank, Versailles, Kentucky.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 24, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04159 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 141 0141] Novartis AG; Analysis of Proposed Consent Orders To Aid Public Comment AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed consent agreement.

    SUMMARY:

    The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent orders—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before March 25, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/novartisgskconsent online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “Novartis AG GlaxoSmithKline—Consent Agreement; File No. 1410141” on your comment and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/novartisgskconsent by following the instructions on the Web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Novartis AG GlaxoSmithKline—Consent Agreement; File No. 1410141” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephanie Bovee, Bureau of Competition, (202-326-2083), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent orders to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for February 23, 2015), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before March 25, 2015. Write “Novartis AG GlaxoSmithKline—Consent Agreement; File No. 1410141” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

    Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

    1 In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/novartisgskconsent by following the instructions on the Web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

    If you file your comment on paper, write “Novartis AG GlaxoSmithKline—Consent Agreement; File No. 1410141” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before March 25, 2015. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Orders To Aid Public Comment I. Introduction

    The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) from Novartis AG (“Novartis”), which is designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects of Novartis' proposed acquisition of oncology assets from GlaxoSmithKline PLC (“GSK”). The Commission has placed the proposed Consent Agreement on the public record for thirty days for receipt of comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty days, the Commission will again evaluate the proposed Consent Agreement, along with any comments received, in order to make a final decision as to whether it should withdraw from the proposed Consent Agreement, modify it, or make final the Decision and Order (“Order”).

    Pursuant to an agreement dated April 22, 2014 (the “Agreement”), Novartis proposes to acquire GSK's marketed oncology products and two pipeline oncology compounds for approximately $16 billion (the “Transaction”). GSK currently has a BRAF inhibitor and an MEK inhibitor approved by the FDA, as well as the only BRAF/MEK combination therapy approved for sale in the United States. BRAF and MEK inhibitors are medicines that inhibit molecules associated with the development of cancer. Novartis has BRAF and MEK inhibitors in late-stage development, as well as a BRAF/MEK combination therapy that it expects to launch in the near future.

    The Commission alleges in its Complaint that the Transaction, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by substantially lessening competition in U.S. markets for BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors. The proposed Consent Agreement will remedy the alleged violations by preserving competition that the Transaction would otherwise eliminate. Under the terms of the Consent Agreement, Novartis is required to divest all rights and assets related to LGX818, its BRAF inhibitor, and MEK162, its MEK inhibitor, to Array BioPharma Inc. (“Array”).

    II. The Relevant Products and Markets

    The relevant markets in which to analyze the Transaction are the development and sale of BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors. BRAF and MEK inhibitors are orally administered, targeted oncology products. Physicians currently use BRAF and MEK inhibitors, increasingly in combination, to treat metastatic, late-stage melanoma. Last year in the United States, there were approximately 76,100 new cases of melanoma and 9,710 deaths caused by melanoma.2 In addition to melanoma, researchers are studying BRAF and MEK inhibitors as potential treatments for a range of cancers, including ovarian cancer, colorectal cancer, and non-small cell lung cancer.

    2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, “Melanoma,” http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/melanoma.

    The United States is the relevant geographic market in which to assess the competitive effects of the Transaction because the FDA must approve BRAF and MEK inhibitors, as well as the use of the two inhibitors in combination, for marketing and sale in the United States. Accordingly, products sold outside of the United States, but not approved by the FDA, are not alternatives for U.S. consumers.

    The BRAF and MEK inhibitor markets in the United States are highly concentrated. Tafinlar®, sold by GSK, and Zelboraf®, sold by F. Hoffman-La Roche AG (“Roche”), are currently the only FDA-approved BRAF inhibitors. Novartis' BRAF inhibitor in development, LGX818, is the only other product likely to begin competing with GSK and Roche in the near future. GSK's Mekinist® is currently the only FDA-approved MEK inhibitor, while Novartis' MEK162 is one of only a small number of MEK inhibitors in late-stage clinical development. GSK also sells the only FDA-approved BRAF/MEK combination therapy, which is comprised of Tafinlar and Mekinist. Aside from GSK, Roche and Novartis are the only companies with BRAF/MEK combinations in late-stage development.

    III. Entry

    Entry into U.S. markets for BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors would not be timely, likely, or sufficient in magnitude, character, and scope to deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects of the Transaction. Like other oncology products, BRAF and MEK inhibitors must complete clinical trials and garner approval by the FDA before they can enter the U.S. markets. Development of new oncology medicines is expensive, time consuming, and has a high rate of failure. The time and resources required to develop and market a new oncology medicine make it unlikely that de novo entry into the relevant markets would be sufficient to offset the anticompetitive effects of the Transaction, and no firms currently have products in development that are likely to enter and prevent competitive harm from the Transaction.

    IV. Effects of the Acquisition

    Without a remedy, the Transaction will eliminate likely future competition between GSK and Novartis in the concentrated markets for BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Absent the acquisition, Novartis likely would have obtained FDA approval for and launched its LGX818 and MEK162 products in the near future in direct competition with GSK's combination offering for treating metastatic melanoma patients. The Transaction would also likely reduce the development of BRAF and MEK inhibitors to treat other types of cancer, because GSK and Novartis are currently developing their respective BRAF and MEK inhibitors for several of the same indications beyond melanoma. By eliminating the potential head-to-head competition between Novartis and GSK, the Transaction will likely result in higher prices for BRAF and MEK inhibitors and reduced choice for U.S. health care consumers.

    V. The Consent Agreement

    The proposed Consent Agreement effectively remedies the Transaction's anticompetitive effects by requiring Novartis to divest to Array all of its rights and assets related to LGX818 and MEK162. The divestiture will preserve the competition that otherwise would have been lost in the markets for BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

    Array is a biopharmaceutical company headquartered in Boulder, Colorado, that focuses on the discovery, development, and commercialization of oncology medicines. Array is well suited to acquire LGX818 and MEK162 because it initially developed MEK162 and is currently a partner with Novartis in the development of both products. Array is a sophisticated company that possesses both the incentive and ability to develop and commercialize LGX818 and MEK162 either independently or with a new partner.

    The Order requires Novartis to divest its rights and interests in LGX818 and MEK162 to Array no later than ten days after consummation of the proposed transaction or on the date that the Order becomes final, whichever is earlier. The divestiture includes regulatory approvals, intellectual property, assets related to ongoing clinical trials and manufacturing processes, and other confidential business information related to the divested compounds. To ensure that the divestiture is successful, the Order requires Novartis to provide transitional support to Array and to manufacture and supply the divested compounds while it transfers manufacturing processes to Array.

    The Commission has agreed to appoint an Interim Monitor to ensure that Novartis complies with all of its obligations under the Consent Agreement and to keep the Commission informed about the status of the transfer of rights and assets to Array.

    The Commission's goal in evaluating possible divestiture purchasers is to maintain the competitive environment that existed prior to the Transaction. If the Commission ultimately determines that Array is not an acceptable acquirer, or that the manner of the divestiture is unacceptable, then the parties must unwind the sale of rights and assets to Array and divest them to a Commission-approved acquirer within six months of the date that the Order becomes final. In that circumstance, the Commission may appoint a trustee to divest the rights and assets if the parties fail to divest them as required.

    The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed Consent Agreement; it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Order or to modify its terms in any way.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04205 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0154; Docket 2015-0053; Sequence 4] Federal Acquisition Regulation; Information Collection; Davis Bacon Act—Price Adjustment (Actual Method) AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning the Davis-Bacon Act price adjustment (actual method).

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before May 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0154, Davis Bacon Act-Price Adjustment (Actual Method), by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number 9000-0154. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0154, Davis Bacon Act-Price Adjustment (Actual Method)”. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0154, Davis Bacon Act-Price Adjustment (Actual Method)” on your attached document.

    Fax: 202-501-4067.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Hada Flowers/IC 9000-0154, Davis Bacon Act-Price Adjustment (Actual Method).

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0154, Davis Bacon Act-Price Adjustment (Actual Method), in all correspondence related to this collection. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Edward Loeb, Procurement Analyst, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, 202-501-0650, or via email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    Government contracting officers may include FAR clause 52.222-32, Davis-Bacon Act—Price Adjustment (Actual Method) in fixed-price solicitations and contracts, subject to the Davis-Bacon Act under certain conditions. The conditions are that the solicitation or contract contains option provisions to extend the term of the contract and the contracting officer determines that the most appropriate method to adjust the contract price at option exercise is to use a computation method based on the actual increase or decrease from a new or revised Department of Labor Davis-Bacon Act wage determination.

    The clause requires that a contractor submit at the exercise of each option to extend the term of the contract, a statement of the amount claimed for incorporation of the most current wage determination by the Department of Labor, and any relevant supporting data, including payroll records, that the contracting officer may reasonably require. The information is used by Government contracting officers to establish the contract price adjustment for the construction requirements of a contract, generally if the contract requirements are predominantly services subject to the Service Contract Act.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 842.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 842.

    Hours per Response: 40.

    Total Burden Hours: 33,680.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0154, Davis-Bacon Act—Price Adjustment (Actual Method), in all correspondence.

    Dated: February 25, 2015. Edward Loeb, Acting Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04238 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [Notice-WW1-2015-01; Docket No. 2015-0006; Sequence No. 1] World War One Centennial Commission; Notification of Upcoming Public Advisory Meeting AGENCY:

    World War One Centennial Commission, GSA.

    ACTION:

    Meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice of this meeting is being provided according to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 10(a)(2). This notice provides the schedule and agenda for the March 12, 2015 meeting of the World War One Centennial Commission (the Commission). The meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    Effective: March 2, 2015.

    Meeting Date and Location: The meeting will be held on Thursday, March 12, 2015 starting at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), and ending no later than 12:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). The meeting will be held at the office of the Jones Day Law firm at 51 Louisiana Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20001-2105. This location is handicapped accessible. The meeting will be open to the public and will also be available telephonically. Persons attending in person are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances (seehttp://www.access-board.gov/about/policies/fragrance.htm for more information). Persons wishing to listen to the proceedings may dial 712-432-1001 and enter access code 474845614. Note that this is not a toll-free number.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Daniel S. Dayton, Designated Federal Officer, World War 1 Centennial Commission, 701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 123, Washington, DC 20004-2608, telephone number 202-380-0725 (Note: This is not a toll-free number).

    Written comments may be submitted to the Commission and will be made part of the permanent record of the Commission. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Friday, March 6, 2015 and may be provided by email to [email protected] Requests to comment at the meeting must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Friday, March 6, 2015. Written presentations may be provided to Mr. Dayton at [email protected] until Friday, March 6, 2015. Please contact Mr. Dayton at the email address above to obtain meeting materials.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The World War One Centennial Commission was established by Public Law 112-272, as a commission to ensure a suitable observance of the centennial of World War I, to provide for the designation of memorials to the service of members of the United States Armed Forces in World War I, and for other purposes. Under this authority, the Committee will plan, develop, and execute programs, projects, and activities to commemorate the centennial of World War I, encourage private organizations and State and local governments to organize and participate in activities commemorating the centennial of World War I, facilitate and coordinate activities throughout the United States relating to the centennial of World War I, serve as a clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of information about events and plans for the centennial of World War I, and develop recommendations for Congress and the President for commemorating the centennial of World War I. The Commission does not have an appropriation and is operated solely on donated funds.

    Contact Daniel S. Dayton at [email protected] to register to comment in person during the meeting's 30 minute public comment period. Registered speakers/organizations will be allowed 5 minutes and will need to provide written copies of their presentations.

    Agenda: Thursday, March 12, 2015.

    Old Business:

    • Approval of minutes of previous meetings.

    • Public Comment Period.

    New Business:

    • Introduction of Ex-Offico and Advisory Members.

    • Report on the French Centenary.

    • Discussion of recommendations to be made to the Congress and the President.

    • World War 1 Washington Memorial Report.

    • Fund Raising Report.

    • Education Report.

    • Kansas City Memorial Day invitation.

    Dated: February 23, 2015. Daniel S. Dayton, Designated Federal Official, World War I Centennial Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04247 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-95-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews (SDRR), Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or the Advisory Board), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

    Notice of Cancellation: A notice was published in the Federal Register on January 30, 2015, Volume 80, Number 20, Page 5117, announcing an Audio Conference Call of the ABRWH-SDRR on February 27, 2015. This meeting was canceled due to a lack of quorum for the meeting. Notice will be provided when the meeting is rescheduled in accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463).

    Contact Person for More Information: Theodore Katz, Designated Federal Officer, NIOSH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, Mailstop E-20, Atlanta Georgia 30333, Telephone (513) 533-6800, Toll Free 1 (800) CDC-INFO, Email [email protected].

    This notice is published less than the required 15 days prior to the start of the announced meeting, in accordance with Section 102-3.150(b) of the GSA Final Rule (2001) that allows for exceptions to the meeting notification time requirement. Section 102-3.150(b) states the following: “In exceptional circumstances, the agency or an independent Presidential advisory committee may give less than 15 calendar days” notice, provided that the reasons for doing so are included in the advisory committee meeting notice published in the Federal Register.”

    In this case, the agency is giving less than 15 days' notice due to the inability to have quorum for the meeting.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04210 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Request for Public Comment: 60-Day Notice for Extension of Fast Track Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery: IHS Customer Service Satisfaction and Similar Surveys AGENCY:

    Indian Health Service, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments. Request for extension of approval.

    SUMMARY:

    The Indian Health Service (IHS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on the “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery” for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.). This collection was developed as part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process for seeking feedback from the public on service delivery. This notice announces our intent to submit this collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval and solicits comments on specific aspects for the proposed information collection. A copy of the draft supporting statement is available at www.regulations.gov (see Docket ID [IHS-2015-0002]).

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments to Tamara Clay by one of the following methods:

    Mail: Tamara Clay, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Indian Health Service, 801 Thompson Avenue, TMP, STE 450-30, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Phone: 301-443-4750.

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: 301-443-4750.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be made available to the public by publishing them in the 30 day Federal Register notice for this information collection. For this reason, please do not include information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If comments are submitted via email, the email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tamara Clay through:

    Mail: Tamara Clay, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Indian Health Service, 801 Thompson Avenue, TMP, STE 450-30, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Phone: 301-443-4750.

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: 301-443-4750.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery: IHS Customer Service Satisfaction and Similar Surveys. Abstract: The proposed information collection activity provides a means to garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. Qualitative feedback is information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but is not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

    The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, cour