Federal Register Vol. 80, No.44,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 44 (March 6, 2015)

Page Range12071-12319
FR Document

80_FR_44
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 12174 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 12174 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
80 FR 12208 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 12227 - In the Matter of Spriza, Inc.; Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
80 FR 12212 - In the Matter of Discovery Oil, Ltd., I/O Magic Corporation, Maydao Corporation, NX Global, Inc, and SensiVida Medical Technologies, Inc.; Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
80 FR 12213 - In the Matter of China Infrastructure Investment Corp., Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
80 FR 12188 - Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 12187 - Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 12071 - Delegation of Authority Under the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014PDF
80 FR 12142 - Notice of Request for a New Information Collection: Gathering Sessions for Safe Food Handling InstructionsPDF
80 FR 12247 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition ReceivedPDF
80 FR 12109 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Kansas; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality StandardPDF
80 FR 12172 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 12244 - Notice Seeking Exemption under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest, C3 Capital Partners III, L.P.PDF
80 FR 12207 - Request for a License to Export DeuteriumPDF
80 FR 12156 - Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery; Submission for OMB Review, Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 12195 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Desert Quartzite Solar Project and a Possible Amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, Riverside County, CaliforniaPDF
80 FR 12147 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 12245 - Delegation to the Under Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights With Respect to Authority Under Section 620M(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as Amended (22 U.S.C. 2378d)PDF
80 FR 12081 - Service of Process; Address ChangePDF
80 FR 12191 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Inspector Candidate Assessment QuestionnairePDF
80 FR 12190 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Re-entry Assistance ProgramPDF
80 FR 12259 - National Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council (NEMSAC); Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 12156 - Authorization of Production Activity; Foreign-Trade Zone 82; MH Wirth, Inc. (Offshore Drilling Riser Systems); Theodore, AlabamaPDF
80 FR 12209 - Submission for Review: Certificate of Medical Examination, 3206-0250PDF
80 FR 12246 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Drawing in Silver and Gold: Leonardo to Jasper Johns” ExhibitionPDF
80 FR 12191 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application for Resident Opportunity & Self Sufficiency (ROSS) Grant FormsPDF
80 FR 12246 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Russian Modernism: Cross-Currents in German and Russian Art, 1907-1917” ExhibitionPDF
80 FR 12157 - Acquisition of Items for Which Federal Prison Industries Has a Significant Market SharePDF
80 FR 12247 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Tête-a-Tête: Three Masterpieces From the Musée d'Orsay”PDF
80 FR 12246 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Art With Benefits: The Drigung Tradition”PDF
80 FR 12144 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 12197 - Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation ProjectsPDF
80 FR 12139 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 12246 - Delegation by the Secretary of State to the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security With Respect to Authority Under Section 1203 of the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization ActPDF
80 FR 12170 - Available Transfer Capability Standards for Wholesale Electric Transmission Services; Supplemental Notice of Workshop on Available Transfer Capability StandardsPDF
80 FR 12206 - Advisory Committee for Geosciences; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 12206 - Advisory Committee for International Science and Engineering; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 12162 - FortisUS Energy Corporation, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, Tucson Electric Power Company, UNS Electric, Inc., UniSource Energy Development Company; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective DatePDF
80 FR 12168 - Equitrans, L.P.; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 12169 - Ozark Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Ozark Abandonment ProjectPDF
80 FR 12162 - Moriah Hydro Corporation; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study RequestsPDF
80 FR 12161 - City of Alexandria, Louisiana; Notice of FilingPDF
80 FR 12166 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 12163 - Dominion Transmission, Inc., Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Supply Header Project and Atlantic Coast Pipeline Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping MeetingsPDF
80 FR 12159 - Yuba County Water Agency; Notice of Study Plan MeetingPDF
80 FR 12161 - California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of FERC Staff AttendancePDF
80 FR 12159 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 12254 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
80 FR 12170 - Notice of Final Decision To Reissue the ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor, LLC Land-Ban ExemptionPDF
80 FR 12073 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM Underground Maximum Capacity Canister Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1040PDF
80 FR 12245 - International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) Meeting Notice; Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 12248 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
80 FR 12244 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: R/PPR Research SurveysPDF
80 FR 12083 - Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Cheesequake Creek, Morgan, NJPDF
80 FR 12082 - Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Harlem River, New York City, NYPDF
80 FR 12082 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Oakland Inner Harbor, Alameda, CAPDF
80 FR 12146 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Submission of Conservation Efforts To Make Listings Unnecessary Under the Endangered Species ActPDF
80 FR 12154 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; List of Gear by Fisheries and Fishery Management CouncilPDF
80 FR 12155 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Scientific Research, Exempted Fishing, and Exempted Activity SubmissionsPDF
80 FR 12138 - Information Collection Request; Debt Settlement Policies and ProceduresPDF
80 FR 12256 - Use of Foreign-Flag Anchor Handling Vessels in the Beaufort Sea or Chukchi Sea Adjacent to AlaskaPDF
80 FR 12245 - Shipping Coordinating Committee Notice of Renewal of CharterPDF
80 FR 12078 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 12175 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 12239 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 12223 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 12212 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 12238 - Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940PDF
80 FR 12092 - Geographic-Based Hiring Preferences in Administering Federal AwardsPDF
80 FR 12256 - Elizabethtown Industrial Railroad LLC-Operation Exemption-Rail Holdings, Inc.PDF
80 FR 12178 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
80 FR 12156 - Procurement List; Proposed Addition and DeletionsPDF
80 FR 12262 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive LicensePDF
80 FR 12247 - Eric Bickleman and Robert Lowe-Continuance in Control Exemption-Elizabethtown Industrial Railroad LLCPDF
80 FR 12253 - Notice of Submission Deadline for Schedule Information for Los Angeles International Airport for the Summer 2015 Scheduling SeasonPDF
80 FR 12193 - Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community-Amendment to Alcoholic Beverage Control OrdinancePDF
80 FR 12158 - Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 12257 - Contracting InitiativePDF
80 FR 12159 - Targa NGL Pipeline Company LLC; Notice of Temporary Waiver of Filing and Reporting RequirementsPDF
80 FR 12167 - Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 12160 - East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 12251 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
80 FR 12136 - Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Drivers of Commercial Motor Vehicles: Negotiated Rulemaking Committee MeetingsPDF
80 FR 12079 - Boundary Expansion of Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary; Notification of Effective DatePDF
80 FR 12142 - Forest Resource Coordinating CommitteePDF
80 FR 12177 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; ExtensionPDF
80 FR 12146 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Availability of the Final Recovery Plan for Staghorn and Elkhorn CoralsPDF
80 FR 12234 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Continued Listing Requirements, as Set Forth in Section 802.01E of the Exchange's Listed Company Manual, in Relation to the Late Filing of a Company's Annual or Quarterly Report With the Securities and Exchange CommissionPDF
80 FR 12213 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Rules of the Government Securities Division and the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division Regarding the Default of Fixed Income Clearing CorporationPDF
80 FR 12183 - Advisory Committee on Interdisciplinary, Community-Based Linkages, Notice for Request for NominationsPDF
80 FR 12184 - Council on Graduate Medical Education; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 12179 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 12205 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Youth CareerConnect Impact and Implementation EvaluationPDF
80 FR 12081 - Oral Dosage Form New Animal DrugsPDF
80 FR 12175 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking ActivitiesPDF
80 FR 12175 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 12173 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
80 FR 12088 - Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as Amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992PDF
80 FR 12079 - Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications by Corporations and Labor OrganizationsPDF
80 FR 12154 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 12155 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 12173 - Filing Dates for the New York Special Election in the 11th Congressional DistrictPDF
80 FR 12152 - Schedules for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification WorkshopsPDF
80 FR 12184 - Center for Scientific Review Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 12182 - National Institute on Aging Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 12182 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 12186 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 12184 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 12145 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Kansas Advisory Committee To Hear Testimony on Seclusion and Restraint of Children With Disabilities in Kansas SchoolsPDF
80 FR 12181 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 12180 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 12240 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Specifying in Exchange Rules the Exchange's Use of Certain Data Feeds for Order Handling and Execution, Order Routing, and Regulatory CompliancePDF
80 FR 12221 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Specifying in Exchange Rules the Exchange's Use of Certain Data Feeds for Order Handling and Execution, Order Routing, and Regulatory CompliancePDF
80 FR 12225 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Specifying in Exchange Rules the Exchange's Use of Certain Data Feeds for Order Handling and Execution, Order Routing, and Regulatory CompliancePDF
80 FR 12228 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To List and Trade Shares of Eight PIMCO Exchange-Traded FundsPDF
80 FR 12232 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change in Order To Permit OCC To Adjust the Size of Its Clearing Fund on an Intra-Month BasisPDF
80 FR 12228 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Price ListPDF
80 FR 12209 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 11.22 To Update the Names of Certain Market Data ProductsPDF
80 FR 12242 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 11.22 To Update the Names of Certain Market Data ProductsPDF
80 FR 12211 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to ICE Clear Europe Clearing FeesPDF
80 FR 12224 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Formalize the ICC Operational Risk Management FrameworkPDF
80 FR 12261 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; Recordkeeping Requirements for Securities TransactionsPDF
80 FR 12194 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Plan Amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan in the West Mojave Planning Area, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, CAPDF
80 FR 12208 - Proposed Submission of Information Collection for OMB Review; Comment Request; Annual Financial and Actuarial Information ReportingPDF
80 FR 12097 - Guidance Regarding Reporting Income and Deductions of a Corporation That Becomes or Ceases To Be a Member of a Consolidated GroupPDF
80 FR 12186 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 12205 - Certain Devices Containing Non-Volatile Memory and Products Containing the Same; Commission's Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation; Termination of the InvestigationPDF
80 FR 12215 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of No Objection to Advance Notice Filing, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Concerning a Proposed Capital Plan for Raising Additional Capital That Would Support The Options Clearing Corporation's Function as a Systemically Important Financial Market UtilityPDF
80 FR 12260 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at the Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport, Broomfield, ColoradoPDF
80 FR 12204 - Outer Continental Shelf, 2017-2022 Oil and Gas Leasing ProgramPDF
80 FR 12192 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Production of Material or Provision of Testimony by HUD in Response to Demands in Legal Proceedings Among Private LitigantsPDF
80 FR 12176 - AmeriFreight, Inc. and Marius Lehmann; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public CommentPDF
80 FR 12171 - Implementation of a New Label for the Design for the Environment (DfE) Safer Product Labeling Program and Supporting Modifications to the DfE Standard for Safer Products; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 12083 - Significant New Use Rule for Pentane, 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy)-PDF
80 FR 12191 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
80 FR 12080 - Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Certain Categories of Archaeological Material From the Pre-Hispanic Cultures of the Republic of El SalvadorPDF
80 FR 12139 - Flathead National Forest, Montana; Revision of the Land Management Plan for the Flathead National Forest and an Amendment of the Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, and Lolo National Forest Plans To Incorporate Relevant Direction From the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Conservation StrategyPDF
80 FR 12203 - Outer Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, Oil and Gas Lease Sales, Western Planning Area Lease Sales 246 and 248PDF
80 FR 12104 - Determination That an Individual Shall Not Be Deemed an Employee of the Public Health ServicePDF
80 FR 12094 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 12207 - Federal-Commercial Spectrum Sharing Workshop: Models, Application, and Impacts of Incentives for SharingPDF
80 FR 12120 - Operation of Radar Systems in the 76-81 GHz BandPDF
80 FR 12264 - Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan RequirementsPDF

Issue

80 44 Friday, March 6, 2015 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Farm Service Agency

See

Food Safety and Inspection Service

See

Forest Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 12139, 12144-12145 2015-05263 2015-05266
Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 12178-12179 2015-05211 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 12180-12182 2015-05165 2015-05166 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Kansas Advisory Committee; Seclusion and Restraint of Children with Disabilities, 12145 2015-05167 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Cheesequake Creek, Morgan, NJ, 12083 2015-05234 Harlem River, New York City, NY, 12082-12083 2015-05233 Oakland Inner Harbor, Alameda, CA, 12082 2015-05231 NOTICES Meetings: Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee, 12187-12188 2015-05368 Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee, 12188-12189 2015-05369 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 12156 2015-05210 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Recordkeeping Requirements for Securities Transactions, 12261-12262 2015-05154 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, 12156-12157 2015-05300 Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System NOTICES Acquisition of Items for Which Federal Prison Industries has a Significant Market Share, 12157-12158 2015-05270 Defense Department Defense Department See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

NOTICES Meetings: Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel, 12158 2015-05205
Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

RULES Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-in Coolers and Freezers; Correction, 12078-12079 2015-05224
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, 12264-12319 2015-04012 Significant New Use Rules: Pentane 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy)-, 12083-12087 2015-05069 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Kansas; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 12109-12120 2015-05328 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.; Weekly Receipts, 12172-12173 2015-05322 Implementation of New Labels: Design for the Environment Safer Product Labeling Program, etc., 12171-12172 2015-05073 Land-Ban Exemptions: ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor, LLC, 12170-12171 2015-05240 Farm Service Farm Service Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Debt Settlement Policies and Procedures, 12138-12139 2015-05227 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 12094-12097 2015-04495 NOTICES Los Angeles International Airport; Scheduling Season; Schedule Information Submission Deadline, 12253-12254 2015-05207 Petitions for Exemption; Summaries, 12247 2015-05332 Release of Airport Property: Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport, Broomfield, CO, 12260-12261 2015-05109 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Cable Communications Policy Act; Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act; Implementation, 12088-12091 2015-05180 PROPOSED RULES Operation of Radar Systems in the 76-81 GHz band, 12120-12136 2015-04032 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 12173 2015-05181 Federal Election Federal Election Commission RULES Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications by Corporations and Labor Organizations, 12079 2015-05178 NOTICES Filing Dates For The New York Special Election in the 11th Congressional District, 12173-12174 2015-05175 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 12174-12175 2015-05440 2015-05441 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC, 12160-12161 2015-05201 Moriah Hydro Corp., 12162-12163 2015-05251 Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., LLC, 12167-12168 2015-05202 Combined Filings, 12159-12160, 12166-12167 2015-05245 2015-05249 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Ozark Gas Transmission, LLC; Ozark Abandonment Project, 12169-12170 2015-05252 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Dominion Transmission, Inc. and Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC; Supply Header and Atlantic Coast Pipeline Projects; Meetings, 12163-12166 2015-05248 Filings: Alexandria, LA, 12161 2015-05250 Meetings: Available Transfer Capability Standards for Wholesale Electric Transmission Services; Workshop, 12170 2015-05257 Yuba County Water Agency, Study Plan, 12159 2015-05247 Requests under Blanket Authorization: Equitrans, LP, 12168-12169 2015-05253 Section 206 Proceedings and Refund Effective Dates: FortisUS Energy Corp.; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp.; Tucson Electric Power Co.; et al., 12162 2015-05254 Staff Attendances, 12161-12162 2015-05246 Waivers: Targa NGL Pipeline Co., LLC, 12159 2015-05203 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Drivers of Commercial Motor Vehicles, 12136-12137 2015-05197 NOTICES Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Vision, 12248-12255 2015-05198 2015-05236 2015-05244 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 12175 2015-05182 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 12175 2015-05220 Proposals to Engage in or to Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities, 12175 2015-05183 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 12177-12178 2015-05194 Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment: AmeriFreight, Inc. and Marius Lehmann, 12176-12177 2015-05105 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; CFR Correction, 12081 2015-05128 2015-05184 Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Gathering Sessions for Safe Food Handling Instructions, 12142-12144 2015-05334 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Authorization of Production Activity: MH Wirth, Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 82, Theodore, AL, 12156 2015-05277 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Land Management Plan Revisions, Flathead National Forest, MT; Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, and Lolo National Forest Plan Amendments, etc., 12139-12142 2015-05054 Meetings: Forest Resource Coordinating Committee, 12142 2015-05195 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 12186 2015-05120
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 12179-12180 2015-05187 Meetings: Council on Graduate Medical Education, 12184 2015-05188 Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee on Interdisciplinary, Community-Based Linkages, 12183 2015-05189 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Resident Opportunity and Self Sufficiency Grant Forms, 12191-12192 2015-05272 Inspector Candidate Assessment Questionnaire, 12191 2015-05284 Re-entry Assistance Program, 12190 2015-05283 Response to Demands in Legal Proceedings Among Private Litigants; Production of Material or Provision of Testimony, 12192-12193 2015-05106 Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 12191 2015-05062 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Alcoholic Beverage Control Ordinances: Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, 12193 2015-05206 Rate Adjustments: Indian Irrigation Projects, 12197-12203 2015-05265 Interior Interior Department See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Reporting Income and Deductions of a Corporation that Becomes or Ceases to Be a Member of a Consolidated Group, 12097-12104 2015-05123 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India, 12147-12152 2015-05289 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Devices Containing Non-Volatile Memory and Products Containing the Same, 12205 2015-05119 Justice Department Justice Department PROPOSED RULES Determination that an Individual Shall not be Deemed an Employee of the Public Health Service, 12104-12109 2015-05027 Labor Department Labor Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Youth CareerConnect Impact and Implementation Evaluation, 12205-12206 2015-05186 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: California Desert Conservation Area Plan in the West Mojave Planning Area, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, CA, 12194-12195 2015-05127 Desert Quartzite Solar Project; Amendments to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, Riverside County, CA, 12195-12196 2015-05290 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Use of Foreign-Flag Anchor Handling Vessels in the Beaufort Sea or Chukchi Sea Adjacent to Alaska, 12256 2015-05226 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Meetings: National Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council, 12259-12260 2015-05281 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 12184-12186 2015-05173 National Eye Institute, 12184 2015-05169 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 12182-12183, 12186-12187 2015-05170 2015-05171 National Institute on Aging, 12182 2015-05172 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Boundary Expansions: Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary; Effective Date, 12079-12080 2015-05196 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: List of Gear by Fisheries and Fishery Management Council, 12154 2015-05229 Scientific Research, Exempted Fishing, and Exempted Activity Submissions, 12155 2015-05228 Submission of Conservation Efforts to Make Listings Unnecessary under the Endangered Species Act, 12146-12147 2015-05230 Endangered and Threatened Species: Staghorn and Elkhorn Corals; Final Recovery Plan, 12146 2015-05192 Meetings: New England Fishery Management Council, 12154-12156 2015-05176 2015-05177 Schedules for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops; Correction, 12152-12154 2015-05174 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee for Geosciences, 12206 2015-05256 Advisory Committee for International Science and Engineering, 12206-12207 2015-05255 Federal-Commercial Spectrum Sharing; Models, Application and Impacts of Incentives for Sharing; Workshop, 12207 2015-04236 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM Underground Maximum Capacity Canister Storage System, 12073-12078 2015-05238 NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 12208 2015-05382 Request for a License to Export Deuterium, 12207-12208 2015-05318 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau NOTICES Oil and Gas Lease Sales: Western Planning Area Lease Sales 246 and 248, Outer Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, 12203-12204 2015-05037 Oil and Gas Leasing Program: Outer Continental Shelf, 12204 2015-05107 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annual Financial and Actuarial Information Reporting; Corrections, 12208 2015-05126 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Certificate of Medical Examination, 12209 2015-05276 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014; Delegation of Authority (Memorandum of February 19, 2015), 12071 2015-05355 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 12212-12213, 12223-12224, 12239-12240 2015-05217 2015-05218 2015-05219 Applications for Deregistration, 12238-12239 2015-05216 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 12209-12211 2015-05158 BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., 12242-12244 2015-05157 Fixed Income Clearing Corp., 12213-12215 2015-05190 ICE Clear Credit LLC, 12224-12225 2015-05155 ICE Clear Europe Ltd., 12211-12212 2015-05156 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 12228-12232, 12234-12238, 12240-12242 2015-05159 2015-05164 2015-05191 NYSE Arca, Inc., 12221-12223, 12228 2015-05161 2015-05163 NYSE MKT LLC, 12225-12227 2015-05162 Options Clearing Corp., 12215-12221, 12232-12234 2015-05117 2015-05160 Trading Suspension Orders: China Infrastructure Investment Corp., 12213 2015-05370 Discovery Oil, Ltd., et al., 12212 2015-05371 Spriza, Inc., 12227 2015-05373 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Conflict of Interest Exemptions: C3 Capital Partners III, LP, 12244 2015-05320 State Department State Department RULES Service of Process; Address Change, 12081-12082 2015-05285 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: R/PPR Research Surveys, 12244-12245 2015-05235 Charter Renewals: Shipping Coordinating Committee, 12245 2015-05225 Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Art With Benefits—The Drigung Tradition, 12246-12247 2015-05267 Drawing in Silver and Gold—Leonardo to Jasper Johns, 12246 2015-05274 Russian Modernism—Cross-Currents in German and Russian Art, 1907-1917, 12246 2015-05271 Tete-a-Tete—Three Masterpieces from the Musee d'Orsay, 12247 2015-05269 Delegations of Authority, 12245-12246 2015-05262 2015-05286 Meetings: International Security Advisory Board, 12245 2015-05237 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Control Exemptions: Eric Bickleman and Robert Lowe; Elizabethtown Industrial Railroad, LLC, 12247-12248 2015-05208 Operation Exemptions: Elizabethtown Industrial Railroad, LLC; Rail Holdings, Inc., 12256-12257 2015-05212 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

PROPOSED RULES Geographic-Based Hiring Preferences in Administering Federal Awards, 12092-12094 2015-05215 NOTICES Contracting Initiatives, 12257-12259 2015-05204
Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Internal Revenue Service

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection RULES Extension of Import Restrictions: Certain Categories of Archaeological Material From the Pre Hispanic Cultures of the Republic of El Salvador, 12080-12081 2015-05060 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Exclusive Licenses, 12262 2015-05209 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Environmental Protection Agency, 12264-12319 2015-04012 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 44 Friday, March 6, 2015 Rules and Regulations NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 [NRC-2014-0120] RIN 3150-AJ42 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM Underground Maximum Capacity Canister Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1040 AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its spent fuel storage regulations by adding the Holtec International HI-STORM Underground Maximum Capacity (UMAX) Canister Storage System, Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1040, to the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” Holtec International's intent with this design is to provide an underground storage option compatible with the Holtec International HI-STORM FLOOD/WIND (FW) System (CoC No. 1032).

DATES:

This final rule is effective on April 6, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0120 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0120. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.

NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gregory R. Trussell, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-6445, email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents I. Background II. Discussion of Changes III. Public Comment Analysis IV. Voluntary Consensus Standards V. Agreement State Compatibility VI. Plain Writing VII. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement IX. Regulatory Analysis X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification XI. Backfitting and Issue Finality XII. Congressional Review Act XIII. Availability of Documents I. Background

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”

To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule in part 72 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), which added a new subpart K within 10 CFR part 72 entitled, “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new subpart L within 10 CFR part 72 entitled, “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs.

The NRC published a direct final rule on this amendment in the Federal Register on September 9, 2014 (79 FR 53281). The NRC also concurrently published an identical proposed rule on September 9, 2014 (79 FR 53352). The NRC received at least one comment that is treated as a significant adverse comment on the proposed rule; therefore, the NRC withdrew the direct final rule on November 19, 2014 (79 FR 68763), and is proceeding, in this document, to address the comments on the proposed rule (see Section III, Public Comment Analysis, of this document).

II. Discussion of Changes

By letter dated June 29, 2012, and as supplemented on July 16 and November 20, 2012; January 30, April 2, April 19, June 21, August 28, December 6, and December 31, 2013; and January 13, and January 28, 2014, Holtec International submitted an application to add the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System to the list of approved spent fuel storage casks in 10 CFR part 72. The HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System is a spent fuel storage system designed to be in full compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 72. Holtec International's intent with this design is to provide an underground storage option compatible with the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for the HI-STORM FW System. The underground structure system is described in the FSAR for the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System. The HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System stores a hermetically sealed canister containing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in an in-ground vertical ventilated module (VVM). The HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System is designed to provide long-term underground storage of loaded multi-purpose canisters (MPC) previously certified for storage in CoC No. 1032. The HI-STORM UMAX VVM is the underground equivalent of the HI-STORM FW storage module. Although the storage cavity dimensions and the air ventilation system in the HI-STORM UMAX VVM have been selected to enable it to also store all MPCs certified for storage in the HI-STORM 100 storage module, CoC No. 1040 does not approve the storage of all MPCs certified for storage in the HI-STORM 100 storage module in the HI-STORM UMAX VVM at this time. The HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System can store either Pressurized Water Reactor or Boiling Water Reactor fuel assemblies in the MPC-37 or MPC-89 models, respectively. The number associated with the MPC is the maximum number of fuel assemblies the MPC can contain in the fuel basket. The external diameters of the MPC-37 and MPC-89 are identical to allow the use of a single storage module design, however the height of the MPC, as well as the storage module and transfer cask, are variable based on the SNF to be loaded.

As documented in the safety evaluation report (SER), the NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC request submitted by Holtec International.

The HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, when used under the conditions specified in the CoC, the Technical Specifications (TSs), and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured. When this final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under 10 CFR 72.210 may load spent nuclear fuel into HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage Systems that meet the criteria of CoC No. 1040 under 10 CFR 72.212.

III. Public Comment Analysis

The NRC received multiple comments from private citizens on the companion proposed rule to the direct final rule published on September 9, 2014. The NRC has not made any changes to the proposed rule as a result of the public comments the NRC has received.

Summary of Comments

The NRC received almost a dozen comments on the proposed rule, many raising multiple and overlapping issues. Because the NRC received at least one comment that it is treating as a significant adverse comment on the proposed rule (raising issues the NRC deemed serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify the record), the NRC withdrew the direct final rule and is responding to the comments here. Other comments were not treated as significant adverse comments because, in most instances, they were beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Nonetheless, in addition to responding to the issues raised in the comments treated as significant adverse comments, the NRC is also taking this opportunity to respond to some of the issues raised in the comments that are beyond this scope of this rulemaking in order to clarify information about the CoC rulemaking process related to the comments received.

Aging Management Programs

Many of the comments the NRC received questioned the fact that aging management programs (AMPs) were not being established for this CoC system. Commenters noted that the NRC has not yet issued the revision to NUREG-1927 (“Standard Review Plan for Renewal of Spent Fuel Dry Cask Storage System Licenses and Certificates of Compliance”), which is currently being updated to include information regarding AMPs, among other things. The comments stated that the approval of this CoC system, “should be put on hold until after the revised NUREG-1927 is final and any appropriate aging management issues are addressed in this CoC.”

The comments questioned some specific example AMPs discussed at public meetings, including questions regarding an example AMP for Chloride-Induced Stress Corrosion Cracking Tests (seismic concerns and sampling size), as well as the absence of an AMP given issues with damaged fuels and the “unknowns of extended storage with high burnup fuel.” In sum, these commenters felt that approval of CoCs, such as this one, should await the formulation and approval of aging management programs.

Response

These comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking which is limited to amending the spent fuel storage regulations by adding the UMAX Canister Storage System, CoC No. 1040, to the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” in 10 CFR 72.214. This rulemaking is not making any changes to the regulations governing the standards for approval of a CoC.

The CoC for the HI-STORM UMAX is being issued for 20 years in accordance with 10 CFR part 72. According to the NRC staff's SER published in the Federal Register under Docket ID NRC-2014-0120, the staff has determined that the use of the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System will be conducted in compliance with the applicable regulations of 10 CFR part 72, and the CoC should be approved for the initial 20-year term. There are currently no technical or regulatory requirements for the inclusion of AMPs for the initial 20-year CoC term. AMPs are required for spent fuel storage cask renewal which allows storage beyond 20 years, as provided in 10 CFR 72.240. The current regulatory requirements provide the necessary defense in depth for safe storage of spent nuclear fuel for at least 20 years.

Based on the regulations in 10 CFR part 72, an AMP will be required to be included in any renewal application for the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, for a duration beyond the initial 20-year term. The renewal application, if filed, will be required to comply with the applicable regulations, and consider applicable NRC aging management guidance available at the time of submittal. While NUREG-1927 may prove useful to applicants seeking to renew a CoC, because it does not provide guidance regarding applications seeking initial approval of certificates, there is no reason to await the guidance before proceeding with the addition of this system to the 10 CFR part 72 regulations.

Inspection Access

Several comments also questioned the ability of the underground storage system to be adequately inspected and potentially repaired if necessary during the initial certification period of 20 years, especially if the system was being used in a coastal environment where stress corrosion cracking could be an issue.

Response

The NRC is treating this comment as a significant adverse comment warranting clarification of the record. The NRC has evaluated the design of the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System and has determined that the design is robust, and contains numbers of layers of acceptable confinement systems in compliance with 10 CFR part 72 requirements. In addition, the staff is not aware of empirical evidence that supports a finding that surveillance would be required in the initial certification period of the proposed CoC. This evaluation is documented in the NRC staff's SER under Docket ID NRC-2014-0120.

Furthermore, the NRC has evaluated the susceptibility to and effects of stress corrosion cracking and other corrosion mechanisms on safety significant systems for SNF dry cask storage (DCS) systems during an initial certification period. The staff has determined that the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, when used within the requirements of the proposed CoC, will safely store SNF and prevent radiation releases and exposure consistent with regulatory requirements.

Seismic Protection

Several comments also raised concerns regarding the ability of this CoC system to withstand seismic events, particularly if the system were to be used at specific sites with known seismic activity, such as San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS).

Response

The NRC is treating this comment as a significant adverse comment warranting clarification of the record. This rulemaking would add a CoC system to the list of approved spent fuel storage casks in 10 CFR 72.214. The certification provided by this approval does not, in and of itself, authorize use of this system at any specific site. Instead, general licensees (a power reactor that stores spent fuel under a general Part 72 license) that wish to use this system must first ensure that other applicable requirements are met. (See 10 CFR 72.212).

The seismic design levels of the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System as provided in this CoC are acceptable for most areas in the continental U.S. For locations that have potential seismic activity beyond those analyzed for this system, additional evaluations and certifications may be required before the system may be used in those locations. The NRC is currently evaluating an amendment request to the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System that provides additional analysis intended to ensure the system's integrity during an earthquake with higher seismic demands, including the seismic demands at the location of SONGS. If the NRC approves that amendment request, the amended system could be selected for use at SONGS, provided regulatory requirements are met.

Bankruptcy

A comment also raised questions about the implications of the potential bankruptcy of corporations that seek CoC approvals.

Response

This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. This rulemaking would add a certified system to the list of spent fuel systems in 10 CFR 72.214 and does not seek to alter the standards for approval of a CoC system. In any event, NRC regulations in 10 CFR part 72 address the financial viability of licensees to ensure spent fuel management and decommissioning are funded. Pursuant to NRC requirements, once a general licensee accepts delivery of a storage system authorized by a CoC, the financial responsibility for maintaining and decommissioning the system become the responsibility of the general licensee (see 10 CFR 72.30(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f)).

Flood Protection

One comment stated that the design basis of the Watts Bar 2 reactor (not yet licensed for operation) intends that safe shut down could occur if there were a flood event that delivered 131/2 feet of water at the reactor buildings. This comment raised the concern that the cask waste storage in an adjacent area would have equal or greater flooding.

Response

This rulemaking is limited to the approval of a CoC system to be added to the list of spent fuel storage casks in 10 CFR 72.214. This rulemaking does not propose any change to the standards for approval of a CoC, or the requirements that govern the use of this CoC by a general licensee. Therefore, this comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

The NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 72.212, “Conditions of a general license issued under 10 CFR 72.210,” require that a general licensee (a power reactor that stores spent fuel under a general part 72 license) perform written evaluations to ensure that the DCS systems used at the location meet the technical requirements of the CoC. The NRC inspects these evaluations prior to the first use of the DCS system and every three years after first use to ensure compliance with the terms of the CoC. If the CoC does not allow for water intrusion, then the general licensee is required to provide engineered measures to ensure that this condition does not occur.

High Burnup Fuel

Several comments also raised questions regarding the long-term acceptability of the extended storage of high burnup fuel (HBF).

Response

Most of the comments raising HBF as an issue did so in the context of the need for AMPs for approval of the CoC for the first 20 years, and that is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, as explained above.

To the extent commenters raised issues about the storage of HBF in the CoC for the first 20 years, the NRC is treating this portion of the comment as a significant adverse comment warranting clarification of the record. The NRC has evaluated the acceptability of storage of HBF for the initial 20-year certification term for the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System. As documented in the NRC staff's SER under Docket ID NRC-2014-0120, the staff has determined that the use of the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, including storage of HBF, will be conducted in compliance with the applicable regulations of 10 CFR part 72, and the CoC should be approved for the initial 20-year term.

Storage beyond the initial term of 20 years will require the applicant to submit a license renewal application with the inclusion of AMPs addressing HBF. In that regard, a demonstration project is being planned by the U.S. Department of Energy to provide confirmatory data on the performance of HBF in DCS. The NRC plans to evaluate the data obtained from the project to confirm the accuracy of current models that are relied upon for authorizing the storage of HBF for extended storage periods beyond the initial 20-year certification term.

Duration of Certificate

Some comments also raised issues with the limited duration of this initial CoC for a term of only 20 years and stated that the systems should have to demonstrate safe storage of nuclear fuel for a much longer storage period.

Response

The issues of long-term storage and disposal of SNF are outside the scope of this CoC rulemaking. This rule is limited to the addition of this storage system to the list of approved designs in 10 CFR 72.214. The regulations governing the length of the CoC term are not within the changes proposed by this rule.

Inspector General's Report

One comment highlighted issues addressed in the 2014 NRC Inspector General's report of the SONGS steam generator replacement, entitled, “NRC Oversight of Licensee's Use of 10 CFR 50.59 Process to Replace SONG'S Steam Generators (Case No. 13-006).”

Response

The issues raised by the NRC's IG report of the SONGS steam generator replacement are outside the scope of this rulemaking. This report is applicable only to that proposed steam generator replacement effort, and does not apply to nor is it related to this specific CoC rulemaking. Approval of this CoC is based upon a safety and environmental review of this specific CoC design as submitted by the vendor. If power reactor licensees wish to use this system at their specific sites, they must first ensure other applicable regulatory requirements are met (see 10 CFR 72.212).

IV. Voluntary Consensus Standards

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this final rule, the NRC will add the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System design to the listing in 10 CFR 72.214. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

V. Agreement State Compatibility

Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the Federal Register on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), this final rule is classified as Compatibility Category “NRC.” Compatibility is not required for Category “NRC” regulations. The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the provisions of 10 CFR. Although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements reserved to the NRC, it may wish to inform its licensees of certain requirements via a mechanism that is consistent with the particular State's administrative procedure laws, but does not confer regulatory authority on the State.

VI. Plain Writing

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274), requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).

VII. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact A. The Action

The action is to amend 10 CFR 72.214 to add the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System to the listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” as CoC No. 1040. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC has determined that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has made a finding of no significant impact on the basis of this environmental assessment.

B. The Need for the Action

This final rule adds CoC No. 1040 for the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. Specifically, Holtec International's intent with this design is to provide an underground storage option compatible with the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System.

C. Environmental Impacts of the Action

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was initially analyzed in the environmental assessment for the 1990 final rule. The environmental assessment for this CoC addition tiers off of the environmental assessment for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past environmental assessments is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage Systems are designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an ISFSI, the type of facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license would store spent fuel in casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other incidents.

Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System would prevent loss of containment, shielding, and criticality control. If there is no loss of containment, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts would be insignificant. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the use of the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. Therefore, the proposed addition of CoC No. 1040 will not result in radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. The staff documented its safety findings for this review in the SER.

D. Alternative to the Action

The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of this new design and issue a site-specific license to each utility that proposes to use the casks. This alternative would cost both the NRC and utilities more time and money for each site-specific license. Conducting site-specific reviews would ignore the procedures and criteria currently in place for the addition of new cask designs that can be used under a general license, and would be in conflict with NWPA direction to the Commission to approve technologies for the use of spent fuel storage at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site reviews. This alternative also would tend to exclude new vendors from the business market without cause and would arbitrarily limit the choice of cask designs available to power reactor licensees. This final rule will eliminate the above problems and is consistent with previous Commission actions. Further, the rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety. Therefore, the environmental impacts would be the same or less than the action.

E. Alternative Use of Resources

Approval of the addition of CoC No. 1040 would result in no irreversible commitments of resources.

F. Agencies and Persons Contacted

No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.

G. Finding of No Significant Impact

The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in 10 CFR part 51. Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this final rule entitled, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1040,” will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this final rule.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This rule does not contain any information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Public Protection Notification

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a current valid OMB control number.

IX. Regulatory Analysis

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in 10 CFR 72.214.

By letter dated June 29, 2012, and as supplemented on July 16 and November 20, 2012; January 30, April 2, April 19, June 21, August 28, December 6, and December 31, 2013; and January 13, and January 28, 2014, Holtec International submitted an application to add the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System.

The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of this new design and issue a site-specific license to each utility that proposes to use the casks. This alternative would cost both the NRC and utilities more time and money for each site-specific license. Conducting site-specific reviews would ignore the procedures and criteria currently in place for the addition of new cask designs that can be used under a general license, and would be in conflict with NWPA direction to the Commission to approve technologies for the use of spent fuel storage at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site reviews. This alternative also would tend to exclude new vendors from the business market without cause and would arbitrarily limit the choice of cask designs available to power reactor licensees. This final rule will eliminate the above problems and is consistent with previous Commission actions. Further, the rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety.

Approval of this final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the SER and the environmental assessment, the final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other Government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of the final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and therefore, this action is recommended.

X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and Holtec International. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).

XI. Backfitting and Issue Finality

The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (10 CFR 72.62) does not apply to this final rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. This final rule adds CoC No. 1040 for the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System to the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.”

The addition of CoC No. 1040 for the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System was initiated by Holtec International and was not submitted in response to new NRC requirements, or in response to an NRC request. The addition of CoC No. 1040 does not constitute backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62, 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1), or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52. Accordingly, no backfit analysis or additional documentation addressing the issue finality criteria in 10 CFR part 52 has been prepared by the staff.

XII. Congressional Review Act

In accordance with the Congressional Review Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801-808), the NRC has determined that this action is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

XIII. Availability of Documents

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.

Document ADAMS Accession No. CoC No. 1040 ML14122A443 Safety Evaluation Report ML14122A441 Technical Specifications, Appendix A ML14122A444 Technical Specifications, Appendix B ML14122A442 Application ML121880102 Application supplemental July 16, 2012 ML12205A134 Application supplemental November 20, 2012 ML12348A483 Application supplemental January 30, 2013 ML13032A008 Application supplemental April 2, 2013 ML13107B249 Application supplemental April 19, 2013 ML13114A191 Application supplemental June 21, 2013 ML13175A363 Application supplemental August 28, 2013 ML13261A062 Application supplemental December 6, 2013 ML13343A169 Application supplemental December 31, 2013 ML14002A402 Application supplemental January 13, 2014 ML14015A145 Application supplemental January 28, 2014 ML14030A055 HI-STORM FW System FSAR ML12363A284 HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System FSAR ML12363A282

The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking Web site at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2014-0120. The Federal rulemaking Web site allows you to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2014-0120); (2) click the “Sign up for Email Alerts” link; and (3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly).

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72

Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72.

PART 72—LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND REACTOR-RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE 1. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Atomic Energy Act secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2239, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act sec. 102 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, 148 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); Government Paperwork Elimination Act sec. 1704, (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 788 (2005).

Section 72.44(g) also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d) (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c), (d)).

Section 72.46 also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 189 (42 U.S.C. 2239); Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 134 (42 U.S.C. 10154).

Section 72.96(d) also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 145(g) (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)).

Subpart J also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act secs. 117(a), 141(h) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10161(h)).

Subpart K also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10198).

2. Section 72.214 is amended by adding Certificate of Compliance 1040 to read as follows:
§ 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks.

Certificate Number: 1040.

Initial Certificate Effective Date: April 6, 2015.

SAR Submitted by: Holtec International, Inc.

SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System.

Docket Number: 72-1040.

Certificate Expiration Date: March 6, 2035.

Model Number: MPC-37, MPC-89.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of February 2015.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Mark A. Satorius, Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 2015-05238 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 431 [Docket Number EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015] RIN 1904-AB86 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers; Correction AGENCY:

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY:

On June 3, 2014, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a final rule adopting conservation standards for some classes of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer components. The final rule was published with typographical errors to some of the reported values. DOE is providing corrections to address these errors. Neither the errors nor the corrections in this document affect the substance of the rulemaking or any of the conclusions reached in support of the final rule.

DATES:

This correction is effective March 6, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1692. Email: [email protected]

Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Department of Energy (“DOE”) is correcting certain typographical errors that appeared in a final rule amending the energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and freezers. 79 FR 32050 (June 3, 2014). Neither the errors nor the corrections in this document affect the substance of the rulemaking or any of the conclusions reached in support of the final rule. DOE is making these corrections to ensure that the presentation of its analysis performed in support of that rulemaking is accurate.

In FR Doc 2014-11489 appearing in the issue of June 3, 2014 (79 FR 32049), make the following corrections:

Corrections

1. On page 32052, in Table I.2, under the Average LCC savings, and Median payback period values, for DC.M.I, first row, is corrected to read “1485”, second column and “2.8” third column, respectively.

2. On page 32102, Table V.12 is corrected to read as follows:

TSL Energy
  • consumption
  • kWh/yr
  • Mean values of 2013$ Installed cost Annual
  • operating cost
  • LCC Life-cycle cost savings Average savings 2013$ Customer that experience % Net cost
  • %
  • No impact
  • %
  • Net benefit
  • %
  • Median
  • payback
  • period years
  • 1 7550 5997 1512 18320 1485 0 0 100 2.8 2 7550 5997 1512 18320 1485 0 0 100 2.8 3 7550 5997 1512 18320 1485 0 0 100 2.8

    3. On page 32115, in Table V.44, the Mean LCC Savings values for DC.M.I, third row, TSL 2 and TSL 3, third and fourth columns, are both corrected to read “1485”.

    4. On page 32115, in Table V.45, Median Payback Period (in years) values for DC.M.I, third row, TSL 2 and TSL 3, third and fourth columns, are both corrected to read “2.8”.

    5. On page 32115, in Table V.46, the Net Cost (%) values, for DC.M.I:, third row, TSL 2 and TSL 3, third and fourth columns, are both corrected to read “0”.

    6. On page 32115, in Table V.46, the Net Benefit (%) values, for DC.M.I:, third row, TSL 2 and TSL 3, third and fourth columns, are both corrected to read “100”.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 12, 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05224 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 11 CFR Parts 104 and 114 [Notice 2015-03] Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications by Corporations and Labor Organizations AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of Effective Date.

    SUMMARY:

    On October 21, 2014, the Commission published in the Federal Register a final rules implementing changes to its rules governing independent expenditures and electioneering communications by corporations and labor organizations. This document announces the effective date of amendments made by that final rule.

    DATES:

    The effective date for the final rule published October 21, 2014, at 79 FR 62797, is January 27, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Robert M. Knop, Assistant General Counsel, or Ms. Joanna S. Waldstreicher, Ms. Esther D. Gyory, or Ms. Cheryl A.F. Hemsley, Attorneys, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694-1650 or (800) 424-9530.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 21, 2014, the Commission published final rules to implement changes to its rules governing independent expenditures and electioneering communications by corporations and labor organizations. Final Rules on Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications by Corporations and Labor Organizations 79 FR 62797 (Oct. 21, 2014). These changes responded to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the James Madison Center for Free Speech petitioning the Commission to amend its regulations in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). The final rules removed provisions prohibiting corporations and labor organizations from making independent expenditures and electioneering communications, and also removed or amended other regulations that implemented or referred to those prohibitions.

    Pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30111(d), the Commission must transmit any rules or regulations to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate for a period of 30 legislative days before they are finally prescribed. For the changes to 11 CFR parts 104 and 114 concerning independent expenditures and electioneering communications by corporations and labor organizations, the rules were sent to Congress on October 10, 2014. The 30 legislative day period ended on January 26, 2015, in the Senate and January 27, 2015, in the House of Representatives.

    In the final rules, the Commission stated that it would publish a separate notice announcing the effective date of the amendments to 11 CFR parts 104 and 114. 79 FR 62797. Through this Notice, the Commission announces that the effective date of amendments to 11 CFR parts 104 and 114 is January 27, 2015.

    Dated: March 3, 2015.

    On behalf of the Commission.

    Ann M. Ravel, Chair, Federal Election Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05178 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 15 CFR Part 922 RIN 0648-BC94 Boundary Expansion of Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary; Notification of Effective Date AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notification of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    NOAA published a final rule to expand the boundary of Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary (TBNMS or sanctuary), clarify the correlation between TBNMS regulations and Indian tribal fishing activities, and revise the corresponding sanctuary terms of designation on September 5, 2014 (79 FR 52960). The new boundary for TBNMS increases the size of the sanctuary from 448 square miles to 4,300 square miles and extends protection to 47 additional known historic shipwrecks of national significance. Pursuant to Section 304(b) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1434(b)) the final regulations take effect after 45 days of continuous session of Congress beginning on September 5, 2014. Through this notification, NOAA is announcing the regulations became effective on February 3, 2015.

    DATES:

    The regulations published on September 5, 2014 (79 FR 52960) are effective on February 3, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeff Gray, Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary Superintendent, at (989) 356-8805 ext 12.

    Dated: February 24, 2015. W. Russell Callender, Acting Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05196 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 19 CFR Part 12 [CBP Dec. 15-05] RIN 1515-AE01 Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Certain Categories of Archaeological Material From the Pre-Hispanic Cultures of the Republic of El Salvador AGENCIES:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule amends U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations to reflect the extension of import restrictions on certain categories of archaeological material from the Pre-Hispanic cultures of the Republic of El Salvador (El Salvador). The restrictions, which were originally imposed by Treasury Decision (T.D.) 95-20 and previously extended by T.D. 00-16, CBP Decision (CBP Dec.) 05-10 and CBP Dec. 10-01, are due to expire on March 8, 2015, unless extended. The Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State (State), has determined that conditions continue to warrant the imposition of import restrictions. Accordingly, these import restrictions will remain in effect for an additional five years, and the CBP regulations are being amended to reflect this extension until March 8, 2020. These restrictions are being extended pursuant to determinations of the U.S. Department of State made under the terms of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act in accordance with the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. T.D. 95-20 contains the Designated List of archaeological material representing Pre-Hispanic cultures of El Salvador, and describes the articles to which the restrictions apply.

    DATES:

    Effective March 8, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For legal aspects, Lisa L. Burley, Chief, Cargo Security, Carriers and Restricted Merchandise Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, (202) 325-0030. For operational aspects, William R. Scopa, Branch Chief, Partner Government Agency Branch, Trade Policy and Programs, Office of International Trade, (202) 863-6554, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Pursuant to the provisions of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, codified into U.S. law as the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (hereafter, the Cultural Property Implementation Act or the Act (Pub. L. 97-446, 19 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.)), signatory nations (State Parties) may enter into bilateral or multilateral agreements to impose import restrictions on eligible archaeological and ethnological materials under procedures and requirements prescribed by the Act. Under the Act and applicable U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations (19 CFR 12.104g), the restrictions are effective for no more than five years beginning on the date on which the agreement enters into force with respect to the United States (19 U.S.C. 2602(b)). This period may be extended for additional periods, each such period not to exceed five years, where it is determined that the factors justifying the initial agreement still pertain and no cause for suspension of the agreement exists (19 U.S.C. 2602(e); 19 CFR 12.104g(a)).

    On March 8, 1995, the United States entered into a bilateral agreement with the Government of the Republic of El Salvador (El Salvador) concerning the imposition of import restrictions on certain categories of archaeological material from the Pre-Hispanic cultures of El Salvador. On March 10, 1995, the former U.S. Customs Service (now U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)) published Treasury Decision (T.D.) 95-20 in the Federal Register (60 FR 13352), which amended 19 CFR 12.104g(a) to reflect the imposition of these restrictions and included a list designating the types of articles covered by the restrictions.

    Import restrictions listed in 19 CFR 12.104g(a) are effective for no more than five years beginning on the date on which the agreement enters into force with respect to the United States. This period can be extended for additional periods not to exceed five years if it is determined that the factors which justified the initial agreement still pertain and no cause for suspension of the agreement exists. 19 CFR 12.104g(a).

    Since the initial notice was published on March 10, 1995, the import restrictions were subsequently extended three times. First, on March 9, 2000, the former U.S. Customs Service published T.D. 00-16 in the Federal Register (65 FR 12470) to extend the import restrictions for an additional period of five years. Subsequently, on March 9, 2005, CBP published CBP Dec. 05-10 in the Federal Register (70 FR 11539) to again extend the import restriction for five years. Most recently, on March 8, 2010, CBP published CBP Dec. 10-01 in the Federal Register (75 FR 10411) to extend the import restriction for an additional five year period to March 8, 2015.

    After reviewing the findings and recommendations of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, and in response to a request by the Government of the Republic of El Salvador, on February 3, 2015, the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State, concluding that the cultural heritage of El Salvador continues to be in jeopardy from pillage of Pre-Hispanic archaeological resources, made the necessary determinations to extend the import restrictions for an additional five years. Diplomatic notes have been exchanged, reflecting the extension of those restrictions. Accordingly, CBP is amending 19 CFR 12.104g(a) to reflect the extension of the import restrictions.

    The Designated List of Archaeological Material Representing Pre-Hispanic Cultures of El Salvador covered by these import restrictions is set forth in T.D. 95-20. The Designated List and accompanying image database may also be accessed from the following Internet Web site address: http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop/esimage.html.

    The restrictions on the importation of these archaeological materials from El Salvador are to continue in effect for an additional five years. Importation of such material continues to be restricted unless the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104c are met.

    Inapplicability of Notice and Delayed Effective Date

    This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and is, therefore, being made without notice or public procedure (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). For the same reasons, a delayed effective date is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.

    Executive Order 12866

    Because this rule involves a foreign affairs function of the United States, it is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    Signing Authority

    This regulation is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1).

    List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 12

    Cultural property, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Prohibited merchandise.

    Amendment to CBP Regulations

    For the reasons set forth above, part 12 of Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 12), is amended as set forth below:

    PART 12—SPECIAL CLASSES OF MERCHANDISE 1. The general authority citation for part 12 and the specific authority citation for § 12.104g continue to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624;

    Sections 12.104 through 12.104i also issued under 19 U.S.C. 2612;

    § 12.104g [Amended]
    2. In § 12.104g, paragraph (a), the table is amended in the entry for El Salvador by removing the reference to “CBP Dec. 10-01” in the column headed “Decision No.” and adding in its place “CBP Dec. 15-05”. R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Approved: February 25, 2015. Mark J. Mazur, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05060 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 520 Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs CFR Correction

    In Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 500 to 599, revised as of April 1, 2014, on page 147, in § 520.580, the heading for paragraph (d) is restored to read “Conditions of use—”.

    [FR Doc. 2015-05128 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 520 Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs CFR Correction

    In Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 500 to 599, revised as of April 1, 2014, on page 167, in § 520.1193, in paragraph (b)(2), revise “051311 and 059130” to read “000859 and 051311”.

    [FR Doc. 2015-05184 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
    DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 172 [Public Notice: 9045] RIN 1400-AD75 Service of Process; Address Change AGENCY:

    Department of State.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rulemaking changes the address for service of process on the Department of State.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on March 6, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alice Kottmyer, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State; phone: 202-647-2318, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This rulemaking provides the new address, effective immediately, for the service on the U.S. Department of State of the documents or actions listed in 22 CFR 172.1(a).

    Regulatory Findings Administrative Procedure Act

    This rule is published as a final rule, effective immediately, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and 553(d)(3). The Department finds good cause for the immediate effect of the rule without notice and comment because public comment on an address change is unnecessary; and, more importantly, it is in the interest of the public for the Department to provide the correct address for service of process, and for it to be effective, as expeditiously as possible.

    Other Authorities

    (1) Since this rule is exempt from the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, it does not require analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    (2) This rulemaking does not meet the criteria for Department actions under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995; the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996; Executive Order 13175 (impact on tribes); or Executive Orders 12372 and 13132 (federalism). This rulemaking is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804.

    (3) In the view of the Department, this rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, and is consistent with the guidance in Executive Order 13563. The benefits of this rulemaking—in providing a current address for service of process—outweigh any costs.

    (4) This rulemaking does not impose or revise any information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 172

    Service of process.

    Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, title 22, part 172, is amended as follows:

    PART 172—SERVICE OF PROCESS; PRODUCTION OR DISCLOSURE OF OFFICIAL INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO COURT ORDERS, SUBPOENAS, NOTICES OF DEPOSITIONS, REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, INTERROGATORIES, OR SIMILAR REQUESTS OR DEMANDS IN CONNECTION WITH FEDERAL OR STATE LITIGATION; EXPERT TESTIMONY 1. The authority citation for part 172 is amended as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; 8 U.S.C. 1202(f); 22 U.S.C. 2658, 2664, 3926.

    2. In § 172.2(a), the last sentence is revised to read as follows:
    § 172.2 Service of summonses and complaints.

    (a) * * * All such documents should be delivered or addressed to: The Executive Office, Office of the Legal Adviser, Suite 5.600, 600 19th Street NW., Washington DC 20036. (Note that the suite number is 5.600.)

    Dated: February 27, 2015. Alice Kottmyer, Attorney Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05285 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0079] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Oakland Inner Harbor, Alameda, CA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Alameda County highway drawbridge at High Street across the Oakland Inner Harbor, mile 6.0, at Alameda, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to make necessary repairs and rehabilitation of the bridge. This deviation allows single leaf operation of the double leaf, bascule-style drawbridge during the deviation period.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective without actual notice from March 6, 2015 through 6:30 p.m. on April 27, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 9:30 a.m. on March 2, 2015, until March 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0079], 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:

    Alameda County has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Alameda County highway bridge at High Street, mile 6.0, over Oakland Inner Harbor, at Alameda, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides horizontal clearance of 244 feet between pier fenders. During single leaf operation, horizontal clearance is reduced to approximately 100 feet. The drawbridge provides a vertical clearance of 16 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited vertical clearance in the open-to-navigation position. As required by 33 CFR 117.181, the draw opens on signal; except that, from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the draw need not be opened for the passage of vessels. However, the draw shall open during the above closed periods for vessels which must for reasons of safety, move on a tide or slack water, if at least two hours notice is given. Navigation on the waterway is commercial, recreational, emergency and law enforcement vessels.

    During the deviation period, the drawspan will be operated with only one leaf between 9:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, while the opposite leaf will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position for rehabilitation. A two hour advance notice will be required from vessel operators for a double leaf opening. At night and on weekends, the drawbridge will resume the normal double leaf operation, when work is not being performed on the bridge. 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 larger vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the waterway users via our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so vessel operators 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 17, 2015. D.H. Sulouff, District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05231 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0065] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Harlem River, New York City, NY 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 operation of the Metro-North (Park Avenue) Bridge across the Harlem River, mile 2.1, at New York City, New York. This deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to perform electrical repairs at the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed from March 13, 2015 through May 21, 2015.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from March 13, 2015 through May 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0065] 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 Mr. Joe M. Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514-4336, [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Metro-North (Park Avenue) Bridge across the Harlem River, mile 2.1, at New York City, New York, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 25 feet at mean high water and 30 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.789(c).

    The waterway is transited by commercial vessels.

    The bridge owner, Metro-North, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate electrical repairs as a result of damage incurred from Hurricane Sandy.

    Under this temporary deviation, the Metro-North (Park Avenue) Bridge may remain in the closed position from March 13, 2015 through May 21, 2015.

    The habitual users can transit under the bridge without requesting bridge openings due to the high vertical clearance under the bridge.

    There are no alternate routes for vessel traffic; however, vessels that can pass under the closed draw during this closure may do so at all times. The bridge may not be opened in the event of an emergency.

    The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any 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 23, 2015. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05233 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0085] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Cheesequake Creek, Morgan, NJ 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 operation of the New Jersey Transit Rail Operations (NJTRO) railroad bridge across Cheesequake Creek, mile 0.2, at Morgan, New Jersey. This deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to perform structural repairs at the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed on three consecutive weekends.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on March 14, 2015 through 7 p.m. on March 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0085] 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 Mr. Joe M. Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514-4336, [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NJTRO railroad bridge across Cheesequake Creek, mile 0.2, at Morgan, New Jersey, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 3 feet at mean high water and 8 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.709(b).

    The waterway is transited by seasonal recreational vessels of various sizes.

    The bridge owner, NJTRO, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate structural repairs at the bridge.

    Under this temporary deviation the NJTRO railroad bridge shall remain in the closed position for three consecutive weekends from 6 a.m. on Saturday through 7 p.m. on Sunday on the following dates: March 14 and 15, March 21 and 22, and March 28 and 29, 2015.

    The draw shall maintain its normal operating schedule at all other times.

    There are no alternate routes for vessel traffic; however, vessels that can pass under the closed draw during this closure may do so at all times. The bridge may be opened in the event of an emergency.

    The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any 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 23, 2015. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05234 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 9 and 721 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0941; FRL-9922-30] RIN 2070-AB27 Significant New Use Rule for Pentane, 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy)- AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is finalizing a significant new use rule (SNUR) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for the chemical substance Pentane, 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy)- that was the subject of premanufacture notice (PMN) P-07-204. This action requires persons who intend to manufacture (including import) this chemical substance for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this final rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification will provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective April 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0941, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket, available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-9232; email address: [email protected].

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substance Pentane, 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy)- (PMN P-07-204; CAS No. 870778-34-0) contained in this final rule. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Manufacturers or processors of the subject chemical substance (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical manufacturing and petroleum refineries.

    This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA. Importers of chemicals subject to these SNURs must certify their compliance with the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of this final rule are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see § 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.

    II. Background A. What action is the agency taking?

    EPA is finalizing a SNUR, under TSCA section 5(a)(2), for the chemical substance Pentane, 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy)- (PMN P-07-204; CAS No. 870778-34-0) codified at 40 CFR 721.10509. This final rule requires persons who intend to manufacture or process the chemical substance for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this final rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity.

    In the Federal Register of September 21, 2012 (77 FR 58666) (FRL-9357-2), EPA issued a direct final SNUR for the chemical substance. EPA received notice of intent to submit adverse comments for the direct final SNUR. In response to that notification a rule was proposed in the Federal Register issue of January 23, 2013 (78 FR 4806) (FRL-6369-9). In response to the proposed rule, EPA received one public comment from the submitter of PMN P-07-204.

    The comment noted that in the time period between filing of a Notice of Commencement of Manufacture or Import in March 2008, and the time of publication of the direct final SNUR in September 2012, the company had entered into an industrial solvent use that did not specifically fall within the scope of the 40 CFR 721.80(j) (the confidential uses identified in the amended premanufacture notice) significant new use reporting requirement contained in the rule. Therefore, the use was considered an ongoing use at the time of the direct final SNUR.

    Further, the commenter mentioned the intent to submit several health and safety studies on the PMN substance that were completed after the expiration of the PMN review period. The following table identifies the studies that were subsequently submitted to the Agency for review and the results of EPA's review of those studies:

    Study EPA findings from study 5-day Inhalation toxicity test in rats Uncertain increase in liver weights at highest dose. Acute dermal toxicity test in rats No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) of 2,000 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day). Acute eye irritation/corrosion test in rabbits Not an eye irritant. Assessment of contact hypersensitivity in the mouse Not a skin sensitizer. Color microarray analysis of liver RNA Indications of ability to activate the xenobiotic nuclear receptor CAR (constitutive androstane receptor), but of uncertain significance relative to ability to affect clinical chemistry endpoints. Primary skin irritation/corrosion test in rabbits. Not a skin irritant. Sub-acute (29-day) inhalation toxicity test in rats Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) of 495 parts per million (ppm) based on liver effects. Analysis of the effect on primary cell cultures (low potency peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) agonist) Uncertain significance.

    Agency review of the 29-day inhalation toxicity study, which demonstrated liver effects, along with the perfluorochemical analog data cited in the proposed SNUR, demonstrate the concern cited in the proposed SNUR for neurotoxicity and liver effects as a result of unprotected occupational exposures via the dermal route. Therefore, the Agency is issuing a final SNUR as proposed that designates as a significant new use manufacture or processing of the substance without impervious gloves, where there is a potential for dermal exposure, and simplifies the wording in the significant new use designation under 40 CFR 721.80 to encompass the ongoing use as follows: “A significant new use is any use of the substance other than for the specific confidential industrial solvent uses identified in the amended premanufacture notice (PMN).”

    B. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including those listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2). Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture or process the chemical substance for that use. Persons who must report are described in § 721.5.

    C. Applicability of General Provisions

    General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the final rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the final rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. According to § 721.1(c), persons subject to these SNURs must comply with the same SNUN requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA section 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA section 5(h)(1), (2), (3), and (5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA may take regulatory action under TSCA section 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7 to control the activities for which it has received the SNUN. If EPA does not take action, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to explain in the Federal Register its reasons for not taking action.

    III. Rationale and Objectives of the Final Rule A. Rationale

    During review of the PMN for the chemical substance Pentane, 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy)- (PMN P-07-204; CAS No. 870778-34-0), EPA determined that one or more of the criteria of concern established at § 721.170 were met. For additional discussion of the rationale for the SNUR on this chemical, see Units II., IV., and V. of the proposed rule.

    B. Objectives

    EPA is issuing this final SNUR for the chemical substance Pentane, 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy)- (PMN P-07-204; CAS N. 870778-34-0) because the Agency wants to achieve the following objectives with regard to the significant new uses designated in this final rule:

    • EPA will receive notice of any person's intent to manufacture or process a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use before that activity begins.

    • EPA will have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing or processing a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use.

    • EPA will be able to regulate prospective manufacturers or processors of a listed chemical substance before the described significant new use of that chemical substance occurs, provided that regulation is warranted pursuant to TSCA sections 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7.

    Issuance of a SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). Guidance on how to determine if a chemical substance is on the TSCA Inventory is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/existingchemicals/pubs/tscainventory/index.html.

    IV. Significant New Use Determination

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:

    • The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.

    • The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

    • The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

    • The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.

    In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2), the statute authorized EPA to consider any other relevant factors.

    To determine what would constitute a significant new use for the chemical substance pentane, 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy)- (PMN P-07-204; CAS No. 870778-34-0), EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substances, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, and the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit.

    V. Applicability of the Significant New Use Designation

    If uses begun after the proposed rule was published were considered ongoing rather than new, any person could defeat the SNUR by initiating the significant new use before the final rule was issued. Therefore EPA has designated the date of publication of the proposed rule as the cutoff date for determining whether the new use is ongoing. Consult the Federal Register Notice of April 24, 1990 (55 FR 17376, FRL 3658-5) for a more detailed discussion of the cutoff date for ongoing uses.

    Any person who began commercial manufacture or processing of the chemical substance identified as pentane, 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy)- (PMN P-07-204; CAS No. 870778-34-0) for any of the significant new uses designated in the proposed SNUR after the date of publication of the proposed SNUR, must stop that activity before the effective date of the final rule. Persons who ceased those activities will have to first comply with all applicable SNUR notification requirements and wait until the notice review period, including any extensions, expires, before engaging in any activities designated as significant new uses. If a person were to meet the conditions of advance compliance under 40 CFR 721.45(h), the person would be considered to have met the requirements of the final SNUR for those activities.

    VI. Test Data and Other Information

    EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require developing any particular test data before submission of a SNUN. The two exceptions are:

    1. Development of test data is required where the chemical substance subject to the SNUR is also subject to a test rule under TSCA section 4 (see TSCA section 5(b)(1)).

    2. Development of test data may be necessary where the chemical substance has been listed under TSCA section 5(b)(4) (see TSCA section 5(b)(2)).

    In the absence of a TSCA section 4 test rule or a TSCA section 5(b)(4) listing covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to submit test data in their possession or control and to describe any other data known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see 40 CFR 720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing.

    Recommended testing that would address the criteria of concern of § 721.170 can be found in Unit IV. of the proposed rule. Descriptions of tests are provided only for informational purposes. EPA strongly encourages persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency pertaining to protocol selection.

    SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information on the following:

    • Human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances.

    • Potential benefits of the chemical substances.

    • Information on risks posed by the chemical substances compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.

    VII. SNUN Submissions

    According to § 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notification requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in 40 CFR 720.50. SNUNs must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 720.40 and § 721.25. E-PMN software is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems.

    VIII. Economic Analysis

    EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substance during the development of the direct final rule. EPA's complete economic analysis is available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0941.

    IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866

    This final rule establishes a SNUR for a chemical substance that was the subject of a PMN. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    According to PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 to list the OMB approval number for the information collection requirements contained in this final rule. This listing of the OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR satisfies the display requirements of PRA and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. This Information Collection Request (ICR) was previously subject to public notice and comment prior to OMB approval, and given the technical nature of the table, EPA finds that further notice and comment to amend it is unnecessary. As a result, EPA finds that there is “good cause” under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) to amend this table without further notice and comment.

    The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.

    Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    On February 18, 2012, EPA certified pursuant to RFA section 605(b) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), that promulgation of a SNUR does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities where the following are true:

    1. A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.

    2. The SNUR submitted by any small entity would not cost significantly more than $8,300.

    A copy of that certification is available in the docket for this final rule.

    This final rule is within the scope of the February 18, 2012 certification. Based on the Economic Analysis discussed in Unit VIII. and EPA's experience promulgating SNURs (discussed in the certification), EPA believes that the following are true:

    • A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.

    • Submission of the SNUN would not cost any small entity significantly more than $8,300.

    Therefore, the promulgation of the SNUR would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this final rule. As such, EPA has determined that this action does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    E. Executive Order 13132

    This action will not have 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

    F. Executive Order 13175

    This action does not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This final rule does not significantly nor uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor does it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this final rule.

    G. Executive Order 13045

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.

    H. Executive Order 13211

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use and because this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    In addition, since this action does not involve any technical standards, NTTAA section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.

    J. Executive Order 12898

    This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    X. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 23, 2015. Maria J. Doa, Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

    Therefore, 40 CFR parts 9 and 721 are amended as follows:

    PART 9—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

    2. In § 9.1, add the following section in numerical order under the undesignated center heading “Significant New Uses of Chemical Substances” to read as follows:
    §  9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 40 CFR citation OMB Control No. *    *    *    *    * Significant New Uses of Chemical Substances *    *    *    *    * 721.10509 2070-0012 *    *    *    *    *
    PART 721—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).

    4. Add § 721.10509 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.10509 Pentane, 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy)-.

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified as pentane, 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy)- (PMN P-07-204; CAS No. 870778-34-0) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Protection in the workplace. Requirements as specified in § 721.63(a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (a)(3), (b)(concentration set at 1.0 percent), and (c).

    (ii) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80. A significant new use is any use of the substance other than for the specific confidential industrial solvent uses identified in the amended premanufacture notice (PMN).

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a) through (e), and (i) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    (3) Determining whether a specific use is subject to this section. The provisions of § 721.1725(b)(1) apply to paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section.

    [FR Doc. 2015-05069 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 76 [MB Docket No. 05-311; FCC 15-3] Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as Amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; petition for reconsideration.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (“Commission” or “we”) respond to Petitions for Reconsideration of the Second Report and Order, interpreting Section 621 of the Communications Act of 1934, which deals with local franchising of cable companies. We clarify the applicability of the Second Report and Order in states that have state-level franchising, grant the request that we reconsider our Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to align with the text of the Second Report and Order, and deny the petitions in all other respects.

    DATES:

    Effective April 6, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information on this proceeding, contact Brendan Murray, [email protected], of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-1573 or Holly Saurer, [email protected], of the Media Bureau, (202) 418-7283.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Order on Reconsideration, FCC 15-3, adopted on January 20, 2015 and released on January 21, 2015. The full text of these documents is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. To request these documents in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an email to [email protected] or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Summary of the Order on Reconsideration

    1. In the Order on Reconsideration (“Order”), we respond to several Petitions for Reconsideration. Petitioners sought reconsideration of our rulings regarding most favored nation (MFN) clauses, in-kind payments, mixed-use networks, and the applicability of the Second Report and Order, 72 FR 65670, November 23, 2007, to state level franchising. They also brought to our attention an inconsistency between the rules adopted and the rules analyzed in the accompanying Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”). We reaffirm that (1) prior rulings were intended to apply only to the local franchising process, and not to franchising laws or decisions at the state level; (2) MFN clauses are contractual terms that are not affected by any of the Commission's prior findings; and (3) “in-kind” payments—non-cash payments, such as goods, or services—count toward the five percent franchise fee cap for incumbent operators and new entrants. We decline to modify our conclusions regarding mixed-use networks. We grant Petitioner's request that we depart from our Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and submit a revised FRFA in order to comply with the mandates of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    I. Background

    2. In the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, Congress added section 621(a)(1) to the Communications Act. That section requires a local franchise for the provision of cable service. A local franchising authority (“LFA”) may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise. Section 621 prohibits a cable franchise authority from prohibiting, limiting, or restricting the provision of telecommunications service by a cable operator. Congress, in enacting this section, sought to enhance cable competition and accelerate broadband deployment.

    3. In 2007, the Commission adopted the First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 72 FR 13189, March 21, 2007, to implement section 621(a)(1). The order adopted rules and provided guidance to ensure that LFAs do not unreasonably refuse to award competitive franchises for the provision of cable services. The First Report and Order found that certain LFA practices violated section 621(a)(1) by: (1) Failing to issue a decision on a competitive application within the order's specified timeframes; (2) failing to grant a franchise when an applicant did not agree to unreasonable build-out mandates; (3) refusing to grant a competitive franchise when an applicant did not agree to impermissible franchise fee requirements; (4) denying applications based on a new entrant's refusal to undertake certain obligations relating to public, educational, and government channels (“PEG”), and institutional networks (“I-Nets”); and (5) refusing to grant a franchise based on issues related to non-cable services or facilities. The Commission issued a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“FNPRM”) for comment on whether or not these findings should be made applicable to incumbent providers and how that should be done.

    4. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission determined that the prior findings involving franchise fees relied on statutory provisions that did not distinguish between incumbents and new entrants, and therefore should be applicable to incumbent operators. The Commission also determined that most favored nation clauses would provide some franchisees the option and ability to adjust their existing obligations if and when a competing provider obtains more favorable franchise provisions. Petitioners sought reconsideration of these rulings and brought to our attention an inconsistency between the rules adopted and the rules analyzed in the accompanying Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”). We respond to those petitions in the Order.

    II. Discussion A. State Level Franchising

    5. Petitioners request clarification regarding whether the Second Report and Order applies to state level franchises. We clarify that the prior rulings were intended to apply only to the local franchising process, and not to franchising laws or decisions at the state level. The First Report and Order stated that its rulings were limited to competitive franchises “at the local level,” as the Commission did not have a sufficient record to determine what constitutes an “unreasonable refusal to award an additional competitive franchise” with respect to franchising decisions where a state is involved versus a local franchising authority. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed, holding that the Commission, in the First Report and Order, did not to preempt state law, state-level franchising decisions, or local franchising decisions authorized by state law because the Commission lacked the information necessary to evaluate state-level franchising laws.

    6. In both the FNPRM and the Second Report and Order, the Commission expressed its intent to extend the First Report and Order's rulings to incumbent cable operators, but said nothing about extending those rulings to state-level franchising laws. The State of Hawaii argues that because the Commission did not address this issue in the Second Report and Order, it did not apply its findings to state-level franchising. Both NCTA and Verizon argue that the Commission unambiguously applied the Second Report and Order's findings to state-level franchising because it stated that the statutory interpretations at issue in the proceeding are “valid throughout the nation.” The Commission reaffirms that it did not extend those rulings in the Second Report and Order to state-level franchising laws or decisions.

    B. Most Favored Nation Clauses and Disruption of Existing Contracts

    7. Petitioners argue that the Commission's conclusions on MFN clauses are inconsistent with our preemption of level playing field regulations in the First Report and Order. NCTA counters that the decisions on MFN clauses should not be reconsidered because of their pro-competitive and public policy purposes. NATOA disagrees with that assertion because both the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission have labeled MFN clauses as “anti-competitive” in certain instances. We decline to modify the conclusions concerning MFN clauses and disruption of existing contracts. In the Second Report and Order the Commission concluded that the determinations in the First Report and Order may allow competitive providers to enter markets with franchise provisions more favorable than those of the incumbent provider, and expected that MFN clauses, “pursuant to the operation of their own design, will provide some franchisees the option and ability to change provisions of their existing agreements.” We reaffirm the prior conclusion that MFN clauses are contractual terms that are not affected by any of the Commission's findings in the First Report and Order.

    C. In-Kind Payments

    8. LFAs petitioned for reconsideration of the inclusion of in-kind payments in calculating the franchise fee cap, arguing that the Commission's determinations give an overly expansive scope of section 622(g)(2)(D), which exempts “charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of the franchise” from the five percent franchise fee cap and also expand the definition of in-kind payments in the First Report and Order. We disagree with Petitioners and adhere to our previous conclusions in the Second Report and Order. In the First Report and Order, the Commission interpreted Section 622, which limits the amount of franchise fees that an LFA may collect from a cable operator to five percent of the cable operator's gross revenues, subject to certain exceptions in subsection (g). The Commission concluded that in-kind payments count toward the five percent franchise fee cap. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission concluded that its interpretation of Section 622 “applies to both incumbent operators and new entrants.”

    9. We disagree with the Petitioners that the Commission's interpretation of the phrase “incidental to” in section 622(g)(2)(D) goes beyond or is inconsistent with our interpretation in the First Report and Order. The Commission concluded in the first order that that the term “incidental” in section 622(g)(2)(D) should be limited to the list of incidental charges provided in the statute, as well as other minor expenses. The Commission examined the existing case law under section 622(g)(2)(D) and determined that certain fees are not necessarily to be regarded as “incidental” and thus exempt from the five percent franchise fee cap. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this interpretation. The Commission's interpretation of section 622(g)(2)(D) in the Second Report and Order mirrors, and does not expand, the interpretation in the First Report and Order.

    10. Further, we disagree with Petitioners that the First Report and Order limited the exemption of in-kind payments only when such in-kind payments are unrelated to cable service. The First Report and Order identified “free or discounted services provided to an LFA” as one type of “non-incidental” cost that counted toward the franchise fee cap. In that context, the Commission was referring to free or discounted cable services. The Sixth Circuit also referenced these different types of in-kind payments separately when it upheld the FCC's interpretation of the five percent cap on fees. For these reasons, we reaffirm our conclusion that in-kind payments count toward the five percent franchise fee cap.

    D. Mixed Use Networks

    11. Petitioners argue that the Second Report and Order's findings that LFA jurisdiction is limited to cable service is incorrect, as the Act “recognizes local authority with respect to `cable systems' or `cable operators' without restriction to `cable service.' ” We adhere to our previous determination on this issue. The Commission's First Report and Order and the Second Report and Order make clear that LFAs may not use their franchising authority to regulate non-cable services provided by either an incumbent or new entrant. As petitioners have not raised any new arguments, we reaffirm the prior conclusion.

    E. Conclusion

    12. We reaffirm that (1) prior rulings were intended to apply only to the local franchising process, and not to franchising laws or decisions at the state level; (2) MFN clauses are contractual terms that are not affected by any of the Commission's prior findings; and (3) “in-kind” payments—non-cash payments, such as goods, or services—count toward the five percent franchise fee cap for incumbent operators and new entrants. We decline to modify our conclusions regarding mixed-use networks. We grant Petitioner's request that we depart from our Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and submit a revised FRFA in order to comply with the mandates of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    III. Procedural Matters A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    13. The Order does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), Public Law 104-13. In addition, we note there is no new or modified “information burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    14. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”) relating to the Report and Order.

    C. Congressional Review Act

    15. The Commission will send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration in a report to be send to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    IV. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    16. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the FNPRM. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The Commission received one comment on the IRFA. Subsequently, the Commission adopted a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”) in the Second Report and Order in this proceeding. Following the release of the Second Report and Order, petitioners sought reconsideration of the FRFA based on an inconsistency between the rules adopted and the rules analyzed in the accompanying FRFA. As explained in the Order, we submit this Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to reflect the rules adopted in the Second Report and Order and to conform to the RFA.

    A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Second Report and Order

    17. The need for FCC regulation in this area derives from eliminating barriers to competitive entry of cable operators into local markets. This Order extends a number of the rules and findings promulgated in the First Report and Order dealing with Section 611 and Section 622 of the Communications Act of 1934. The objectives of the rules we adopt are to support a competitive market for both new and incumbent cable operators to further the interrelated goals of enhanced cable competition and broadband deployment.

    18. Specifically, we reaffirm that (1) prior rulings were intended to apply only to the local franchising process, and not to franchising laws or decisions at the state level; (2) most favored nation (“MFN”) clauses are contractual terms that are not affected by any of the Commission's prior findings; and (3) “in-kind” payments—non-cash payments, such as goods, or services—count toward the five percent franchise fee cap for incumbent operators and new entrants. We decline to modify our conclusions regarding mixed-use networks. We grant Petitioner's request that we depart from our Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and submit a revised FRFA in order to comply with the mandates of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA

    19. Only one commenter, the Local Government Lawyer's Roundtable, submitted a comment that specifically responded to the IRFA. The Local Government Lawyer's Roundtable contends that the Commission should issue a revised IRFA because of the erroneous determination that the proposed rules would have a de minimus effect on small governments, specifically engendering additional training and hiring.

    20. We disagree with the Local Government Lawyer's Roundtable's assertion that our rules will have any more than a de minimus effect on small governments. LFAs will continue to review and decide upon competitive and renewal cable franchise applications. Additional training and hiring of additional personnel is not necessary to understand these actions. The Order simply extends existing, limited requirements, and therefore should not need additional training or personnel to implement.

    21. After issuing the FRFA in the Second Report and Order, the Commission received a Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification from the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (“NATOA”) et al. regarding the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The petition repeated the Local Government Lawyer's Roundtable's arguments, and also argued that the Commission failed to consider actual alternatives, failed to include small organizations in the IRFA, and that the FRFA provided an analysis of the tentative conclusions set forth in the IRFA rather than the rules adopted.

    22. The Commission determined that since the findings in the Second Report and Order were matters of statutory interpretation, the result was statutorily mandated regardless of the RFA analysis, and that, therefore, no meaningful alternatives existed. Additionally, we find that the IRFA and FRFA discuss the economic impact on small entities. No commenter suggested that further entities should be additionally considered in the analysis. However, the Commission does agree with the analysis was inadvertently based on the tentative conclusions presented in the IRFA. In order to comply with the mandates of the RFA, we are submitting this Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to correctly reflect the rules adopted in the Second Report and Order.

    C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply

    23.The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental entity” under Section 3 of the Small Business Act. In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”).

    24. The rules adopted by the Order will streamline the local franchising process by adopting rules that provide guidance as to the applicability or prior findings in this procedure to incumbents and the limitations on the Commission's authority regarding customer service regulations. The Commission has determined that the group of small entities directly affected by the rules adopted herein consists of small governmental entities (which, in some cases may be represented in the local franchising process by not-for-profit enterprises). Therefore, in this SFRFA, we consider the impact of the rules on small governmental organizations.

    D. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions

    25.Our action may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. Small businesses represented 99.9% of the 27.5 million businesses in the United States in 2009. There were 1,621,315 small organizations nationwide in 2007, which are defined as independently owned and operated not-for-profit enterprises that are not dominant in their perspective fields. Finally, there were 89,527 small governmental jurisdictions in 2007, which are defined as governments of cities, towns and other entities with a population of less than fifty thousand.

    E. Cable and Other Subscription Programming

    26. This category includes establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee basis. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 396 such firms that operated for the entire year. Of that number, 349 operated with annual revenues below $25 million and 47 operated with annual revenues of $25 million or more. Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small.

    F. Cable Companies and Systems

    27. The Commission defines a small cable company as one that serves 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. There are 1,258 cable operators—all but 10 incumbent cable companies are small under this size standard. In addition, the Commission defines a small cable system as one that serves 15,000 or fewer subscribers. There are 4,584 cable systems nationwide. Of this total, 4,012 cable systems have 20,000 subscribers or more. Thus, under this standard, we estimate that most cable systems are small.

    G. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard)

    28. The Communication Act of 1934 defines a small cable system operator as “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” The Commission has determined that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Industry data indicate that, of 1,076,934 cable operators nationwide, all but 13 are small under this size standard.

    H. Open Video Systems (“OVS”)

    29. The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than through cable systems. Because OVS operators provide subscription services, OVS falls within the SBA small business size standard covering cable services, which is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. A small business in this category is a business that has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,144 had fewer than 1,000 employees and 44 had 1,000 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that a majority of businesses can be considered small entities.

    I. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

    30. The rule and guidance adopted in the Order imposes no additional reporting or record keeping requirements and imposes de minimus other compliance requirements. Because the rules limit the terms than an LFA may consider and impose in a franchise agreement, the rules will decrease the procedural burdens faced by LFAs. Therefore, the rules adopted will not require any additional special skills beyond any already needed in the cable franchising context.

    J. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    31. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

    32. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on the extension of its findings in the First Report and Order to incumbent cable operators, and to comment on the basis for the Commission's authority to do so. The Commission tentatively concluded that the rules adopted in the Second Report and Order likely would have at most a de minimus impact on small governmental jurisdictions, and that the interrelated, high-priority federal communications policy goals of enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment necessitated the extension of its rules to incumbent cable providers. We agree with those tentative conclusions and we believe that the rules in the Second Report and Order will not impose a significant impact on any small entity.

    K. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Commission's Proposals

    33. None.

    V. Ordering Clauses

    34. Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to the sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, 405, 602, 611, 621, 622, 625, 626, and 632 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 405, 522, 531, 541, 542, 545, 546, and 552, and § 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429, the Order on Reconsideration is adopted.

    35. It is further ordered that the petitions for reconsideration filed by the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico et al, the City of Breckenridge Hills, Missouri and National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, et al. are hereby granted in part and denied in part as described above. This action is taken pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, 405, 602, 611, 621, 622, 625, 626, and 632 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 405, 522, 531, 541, 542, 545, 546, and 552, and § 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429.

    36. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Order on Reconsideration, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    37. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of the Order on Reconsideration in a report to be sent to Congress and the General Accounting Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05180 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    80 44 Friday, March 6, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 2 CFR Part 1201 [Docket DOT-OST-2015-0013] RIN 2105-AE38 Geographic-Based Hiring Preferences in Administering Federal Awards AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary (OST); U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The DOT proposes to amend its regulations implementing the Government-wide Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards to permit recipients and subrecipients to impose geographic-based hiring preferences whenever not otherwise prohibited by Federal statute.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2015. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable, but the DOT may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions, please submit them by only one of the following means:

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

    Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 366-9329.

    Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket number or the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for the rulemaking at the beginning of your comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Harkins, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for General Law (OST-C10), Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W83-312, Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-0590.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On December 26, 2014, the DOT's regulations at 2 CFR part 1201 became effective, which adopted the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) revised Government-wide Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal awards to non-Federal entities at 2 CFR part 200 (Common Rule). These requirements at 2 CFR 200.319(b) prohibit the use of in-state or local geographic preferences in the evaluation of bids or proposals except where Federal statute mandates or encourages the use of such preferences.1 This prohibition extends to the use of geographic hiring preferences in contracts that are awarded by recipients and subrecipients with Federal financial assistance since such preferences could result in a competitive advantage for contractors based in the targeted hiring area. This provision in the OMB Common Rule is not new and was found in the DOT's implementation of the prior version of OMB's Common Rule (49 CFR 18.36(c)(2) (2014)).

    1 For example, 23 U.S.C. 140(d) authorizes the preferential employment of Indians living on or near a reservation on projects and contracts on Indian reservations roads under the Federal-aid Highway Program.

    Many recipients and subrecipients at the local governmental level have local hiring provisions that they otherwise apply to procurements that do not involve Federal funding. Such provisions are intended to ensure that the communities in which the projects are located benefit from the jobs that result from their investment of their funds, particularly for workers in low income areas. Transportation plays a critical role in connecting Americans and communities to economic opportunity. The choices that are made regarding transportation infrastructure can strengthen communities, create pathways to jobs and improve the quality of life for all Americans. Transportation investments and policies can improve access to jobs, education, and goods movement, while providing construction and operations jobs. As such, the DOT believes that local and other geographic-based hiring preferences are essential to promoting Ladders of Opportunity for the workers in these communities by ensuring that they participate in, and benefit from, the economic opportunities such projects present.

    Additionally, Section 418 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Public Law 113-235 (FY 2015 Appropriations Act), prohibits the Federal Transit Administration from using fiscal year (FY) 2015 funds to implement, administer, or enforce 49 CFR 18.36(c)(2), for construction hiring. Section 18.36(c)(2) prohibits the use of statutorily or administratively imposed in-State or local geographical preferences in the evaluation of bids or proposals.2 Thus, at least for FTA-funded project in FY 2015, Congress has diminished the legal effectiveness of this provision.

    2 Effective December 26, 2014, 49 CFR part 18 will apply only to grants obligated on or before December 25, 2014. Grants obligated on or after December 26, 2014 will be subject to 2 CFR part 200. This provision (18.36(c)(2)) has been recodified at 2 CFR 200.319(b) and is substantively the same as 18.36(c)(2). Although Congress did not address the change in codification in section 418, FTA intends to apply section 418 to grants obligated on or after December 26, 2014 and subject to 2 CFR 200.319(b).

    Therefore, the DOT is proposing to amend Part 1201 by promulgating a provision to deviate from the OMB guidance by making clear that geographic hiring preferences may be used in DOT grant programs. With this deviation, local communities will be in a better position to leverage Federal and State and local funds into local jobs and economic growth. However, this deviation would only apply to the extent that such geographic hiring preferences are not otherwise prohibited by Federal statute or regulation. For example, the Federal statutory provision at 23 U.S.C. 112 requires full and open competition in the award of contracts under the Federal-aid highway program. The Federal Highway Administration has traditionally interpreted this provision as prohibiting the use of geographic hiring preferences and reinforced this interpretation in 23 CFR 635.117(b). Under a 2013 Opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), OLC clarified that section 112 does not compel the DOT from prohibiting recipients and subrecipients under the Federal-aid Highway Program from imposing contract requirements that do not directly relate to the performance of work. Rather, the OLC opinion states that the Secretary has discretion to permit such requirements as long as they do not “unduly limit competition.” (See Competitive Bidding Requirements Under the Federal-Aid Highway Program, 23 U.S.C. 112, (Aug. 23, 2013)).

    In order to determine whether contracting requirements may be used consistent with the 2013 OLC opinion, the DOT has established a pilot program under which such geographic-based hiring requirements may be used on an experimental basis. This program, which is published in today's Federal Register, allows recipients and subrecipients of Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration funds to use such requirements pursuant to the experimental authorities of those agencies. For any such projects, the DOT will monitor and evaluate whether the contracting requirements approved for use under the pilot program have an undue restriction on competition.

    Regulatory Analyses and Notices Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and USDOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The DOT has preliminarily determined that this action would not be a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and would not be significant within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures. It is anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal. These proposed changes would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

    Allowing local geographic preferences in hiring, where none currently exist, may result in additional local hiring and in non-local workers not obtaining jobs they otherwise might get. To the extent this occurs this would be an economic transfer from non-local workers to local workers and not a cost.

    To the extent local labor markets are tight this could increase labor costs for the DOT-Grant funded projects if all hiring is local. Similarly, if local supply of labor in the skilled trades is low, productivity on DOT-Grant funded project could decrease and project costs could increase if all hiring is local. However, the proposed rule is not forcing local governments to hire locally; it is only saying that they may use geographic hiring preferences. They will only exercise this option if they feel it is net beneficial to their communities to do so.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the DOT has evaluated the effects of this proposed action on small entities and has determined that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed action does not affect any funding distributed under any of the programs administered by the DOT. For these reasons, I hereby certify that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48). This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $128.1 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). Further, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the DOT will evaluate any regulatory action that might be proposed in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the effects on State, local, tribal governments and the private sector.

    Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)

    This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and the DOT has determined preliminarily that this proposed action would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The DOT has also determined that this proposed action would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

    Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, dated May 18, 2001. We have determined that it is not a significant energy action under that order since it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

    Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program. Accordingly, the DOT solicits comments on this issue.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The DOT has determined that this proposal does not contain collection of information requirements for the purposes of the PRA.

    Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action 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.

    Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The DOT certifies that this proposed action would not cause any environmental risk to health or safety that might disproportionately affect children.

    Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    The DOT has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interface with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. The DOT does not anticipate that this proposed action would affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    The DOT has analyzed the environmental impacts of this proposed action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined that it is categorically excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1C, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (44 FR 56420, Oct. 1, 1979). Categorical exclusions are actions identified in an agency's NEPA implementing procedures that do not normally have a significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See 40 CFR 1508.4. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. Id. Paragraph 3.c.5 of DOT Order 5610.1C incorporates by reference the categorical exclusions for all DOT Operating Administrations. This action is covered by the categorical exclusion listed in the Federal Highway Administration's implementing procedures, “[p]romulgation of rules, regulations, and directives.” 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20). The purpose of this rulemaking is to permit recipients and subrecipients to impose geographic-based hiring preferences whenever not otherwise prohibited by Federal statute. The agency does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

    Regulation Identifier Number

    A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

    List of Subjects in 2 CFR Part 1201

    Uniform administrative requirements, Cost principles, and audit requirements for Federal awards.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 24, 2015. Anthony R. Foxx, Secretary of Transportation.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 1201 of title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 1201—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS 1. The authority citation for part 1201 continues to read: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 322.

    2. Add § 1201.319 to read as follows:
    § 1201.319 Competition.

    Notwithstanding 2 CFR 200.319, non-Federal entities may utilize geographic hiring preferences (including local hiring preferences) pertaining to the use of labor on a project consistent with such non-Federal entities' policies and procedures, when not otherwise prohibited by Federal statute or regulation.

    [FR Doc. 2015-05215 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0250; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-216-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of airspeed indication discrepancies while flying at high altitudes in inclement weather. This proposed AD would require replacing certain pitot probes on the captain, first officer, and standby sides with certain new pitot probes. We are proposing this AD to prevent airspeed indication discrepancies during inclement weather, which, depending on the prevailing altitude, could lead to unknown accumulation of ice crystals and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact 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.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0250; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0250; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-216-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0237R1, dated December 5, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Occurrences have been reported on A320 family aeroplanes of airspeed indication discrepancies while flying at high altitudes in inclement weather conditions. Investigation results indicated that A320 aeroplanes equipped with Thales Avionics Part Number (P/N) 50620-10 or P/N C16195AA pitot probes appear to have a greater susceptibility to adverse environmental conditions that aeroplanes equipped with certain other pitot probes.

    Prompted by earlier occurrences, DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued [DGAC] AD 2001-362 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2001_362.pdf/AD_2001-362] [which corresponds to paragraph (f) of FAA AD 2004-03-33, Amendment 39-13477 (69 FR 9936, March 3, 2004)] to require replacement of Thales (formerly known as Sextant) P/N 50620-10 pitot probes with Thales P/N C16195AA probes.

    Since that [DGAC] AD was issued, Thales pitot probe P/N C15195BA was designed, which improved airspeed indication behavior in heavy rain conditions, but did not demonstrate the same level of robustness to withstand high-altitude ice crystals. Based on these findings, EASA have decided to implement replacement of the affected Thales [pitot] probes as a precautionary measure to improve the safety level of the affected aeroplanes.

    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2014-0237 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2014_0237.pdf/AD_2014-0237], retaining the requirements of DGAC France AD 2001-362, which was superseded, to require replacement of Thales Avionics pitot probes P/N C16195AA and P/N C16195BA.

    The following related DGAC France ADs were also cancelled by EASA AD 2014-0237, without retaining any of their requirements:

    • AD 91-227-021R1 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_91_227_021R1.pdf/AD_91_227_021R1], that required replacement of Titeflex hoses; and

    • AD 2002-586R1 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2002_586R1.pdf/AD_2002_586R1], that required cleaning of Thales P/N C16195AA probes.

    Since EASA issued AD 2014-0237, it was brought to the Agency's attention that Airbus modification (mod) 155737 was introduced to install Thales probes in production. This affects paragraph (4) of the [EASA] AD.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD is revised to amend paragraph (4), making reference to aeroplanes which are post-mod 25578, but also post-mod 155737, as a result of which they have Thales probes installed.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0250.

    Related Rulemaking

    On February 4, 2004, we issued AD 2004-03-33, Amendment 39-13477 (69 FR 9936, March 3, 2004), applicable to certain Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, A300 B4-600R, and A300 F4-600R series airplanes; Model A310 series Airplanes; Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes; Model A330-301, -321, -322, -341, and -342 airplanes; and Model A340 series airplanes. That AD requires, among other actions, replacement of certain pitot probes with certain new pitot probes. That AD was issued to prevent loss or fluctuation of indicated airspeed, which could result in misleading information being provided to the flightcrew.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 28, dated September 1, 2014; Service Bulletin A320-34-1456, Revision 01, dated May 15, 2012; and Service Bulletin A320-34-1463, Revision 01, dated May 15, 2012. The service information describes procedures for replacing certain Thales Avionics pitot probes on the captain, first officer, and standby sides with certain other Goodrich pitot probes.

    The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

    Difference Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    The EASA MCAI specifies that installation of a pitot probe approved after the effective date of the EASA AD, and compliant with the “new EASA icing requirements,” is equal to compliance with the requirements in paragraph (h) of this proposed AD, provided the part is approved by EASA or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). However, this proposed AD does not include that requirement because EASA regulations do not apply to airplanes type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29).

    Paragraph (1) of the MCAI requires replacement of Thales part number (P/N) 50620-10 pitot probes with Thales P/N C16195AA pitot probes. However, that action is not included in this proposed AD. Paragraph (f) of AD 2004-03-33, Amendment 39-13477 (69 FR 9936, March 3, 2004), requires that action.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 953 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $21,930 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $21,223,310, or $22,270 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-0250; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-216-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 20, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2004-03-33, Amendment 39-13477 (69 FR 9936, March 3, 2004).

    (c) Applicability

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

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

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

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

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

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of airspeed indication discrepancies while flying at high altitudes in inclement weather. We are issuing this AD to prevent airspeed indication discrepancies during inclement weather, which, depending on the prevailing altitude, could lead to unknown accumulation of ice crystals and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Replacement of Pitot Probes

    Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace any Thales pitot probe having part number (P/N) C16195AA or P/N C16195BA, with a Goodrich pitot probe having P/N 0851HL, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 28, dated September 1, 2014. Accomplishing the replacement in this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD 2004-03-33, Amendment 39-13477 (69 FR 9936, March 3, 2004), for that airplane only.

    (h) Methods of Compliance for Replacement

    (1) Replacement of the pitot probes in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1456, Revision 01, dated May 15, 2012 (pitot probes on the captain and standby sides); and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1463, Revision 01, dated May 15, 2012 (pitot probes on the first officer side); is an acceptable method of compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (2) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 25578 was embodied in production, except for post-modification 25578 airplanes on which Airbus Modification 155737 (installation of Thales pitot probes) was also embodied in production, are compliant with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, provided it can be conclusively determined that no Thales pitot probe having P/N C16195AA, P/N C16195BA, or P/N 50620-10 has been installed since the date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness. Post-modification 25578 airplanes on which Airbus Modification 155737 (installation of Thales pitot probes) was also embodied in production must be in compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (i) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information identified in paragraph (i)(1)(i) through (i)(1)(xxiv) of this AD. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 04, dated May 24, 2000.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 05, dated September 11, 2000.

    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 06, dated October 18, 2001.

    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 07, dated December 4, 2001.

    (v) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 08, dated January 15, 2003.

    (vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 09, dated February 17, 2003.

    (vii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 10, dated November 21, 2003.

    (viii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 11, dated August 18, 2004.

    (ix) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 12, dated December 2, 2004.

    (x) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 13, dated January 18, 2005.

    (xi) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 14, dated April 21, 2005.

    (xii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 15, dated July 19, 2005.

    (xiii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 16, dated November 23, 2006.

    (xiv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 17, dated February 14, 2007.

    (xv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 18, dated October 9, 2009.

    (xvi) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 19, dated November 9, 2009.

    (xvii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 20, dated December 1, 2010.

    (xviii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 21, dated March 24, 2011.

    (xix) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 22, dated July 19, 2011.

    (xx) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 23, dated February 3, 2012.

    (xxi) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 24, dated April 12, 2012.

    (xxii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 25, dated September 4, 2012.

    (xxiii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 26, dated September 16, 2013.

    (xxiv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 27, dated March 18, 2014.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the replacement of pitot probes on the captain and standby sides specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, if the replacement was performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1456, dated December 2, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (3) This paragraph provides credit for the replacement of pitot probes on the first officer side specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1463, dated March 9, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (j) Parts Installation Limitations

    (1) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i) or (j)(1)(ii) of this AD: No person may install on any airplane a Thales pitot probe having P/N C16195AA or P/N C16195BA.

    (i) For airplanes with a Thales pitot probe having P/N C16195AA or P/N C16195BA installed: After accomplishing the replacement required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (ii) For airplanes without a Thales pitot probe having P/N C16195AA or P/N C16195BA installed: As of the effective date of this AD.

    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane a Thales pitot probe having part number P/N 50620-10.

    (k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

    (l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0237R1, dated December 5, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0250.

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 19, 2015. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-04495 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-100400-14] RIN 1545-BM14 Guidance Regarding Reporting Income and Deductions of a Corporation That Becomes or Ceases To Be a Member of a Consolidated Group AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains proposed amendments to the consolidated return regulations. These proposed regulations would revise the rules for reporting certain items of income and deduction that are reportable on the day a corporation joins or leaves a consolidated group. The proposed regulations would affect such corporations and the consolidated groups that they join or leave.

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by June 4, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-100400-14), 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-100400-14), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov/ (IRS REG-100400-14).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed regulations, Russell G. Jones, (202) 317-6847; concerning the submission of comments or to request a public hearing, Oluwafunmilayo (Funmi) P. Taylor, (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Explanation of Provisions 1. Introduction

    This notice of proposed rulemaking contains proposed regulations that amend 26 CFR part 1 under section 1502 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Section 1502 authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations for corporations that join in filing a consolidated return, and it expressly provides that those rules may be different from the provisions of chapter 1 of subtitle A of the Code that would apply if those corporations filed separate returns. Terms used in the consolidated return regulations generally are defined in § 1.1502-1.

    These proposed regulations provide guidance under § 1.1502-76, which prescribes rules for determining the taxable period in which items of income, gain, deduction, loss, and credit (tax items) of a corporation that joins in filing a consolidated return are included. Section 1.1502-76(b) provides, in part, that if a corporation (S) becomes or ceases to be a member of a consolidated group during a consolidated return year, S must include in the consolidated return its tax items for the period during which it is a member. S also must file a separate return (including a consolidated return of another group) that includes its items for the period during which it is not a member.

    2. Prior and Current Regulations

    On September 8, 1966, the IRS and the Treasury Department promulgated regulations under § 1.1502-76 in TD 6894, 31 FR 11794 (1966 regulations). Section 1.1502-76(b) of the 1966 regulations was silent regarding the treatment of S's tax items that accrued on the day S became or ceased to be a member of a consolidated group (S's change in status). Thus, whether S's tax items for the day of S's change in status should have been reflected on S's tax return for the short period ending with S's change in status, or whether these tax items should have been reflected instead on S's tax return for the short period beginning after S's change in status, was unclear under the 1966 regulations.

    On August 15, 1994, the IRS and the Treasury Department published final regulations (TD 8560; 59 FR 41666) under § 1.1502-76(b) (current regulations) that revised the 1966 regulations to eliminate uncertainty regarding the treatment of tax items recognized by S on the day of S's change in status. Under the general rule of § 1.1502-76(b)(1)(ii)(A)(1) of the current regulations (current end of the day rule), S is treated for all federal income tax purposes as becoming or ceasing to be a member of a consolidated group at the end of the day of S's change in status, and S's tax items that are reportable on that day generally are included in the tax return for the taxable year that ends as a result of S's change in status.

    The notice of proposed rulemaking that proposed the current end of the day rule (57 FR 53634, Nov. 12, 1992) (1992 NPRM) indicated that the current end of the day rule was intended to provide certainty and prevent inconsistent reporting of S's items between the consolidated and separate returns. Prior to the 1992 NPRM, some taxpayers had inferred (based upon the administrative practice of the IRS) that the inclusion in a particular return of a tax item of S incurred on the day of S's change in status depended on a factual determination of whether the transaction occurred before or after noon on the day of S's change in status (the so-called “lunch rule”).

    There are two exceptions to the current end of the day rule. The first exception (in § 1.1502-76(b)(1)(ii)(A)(2)) provides that if a corporation is an S corporation (within the meaning of section 1361(a)(1)) immediately before becoming a member of a consolidated group, the corporation becomes a member of the group at the beginning of the day the termination of its S corporation election is effective (termination date), and its taxable year ends for all federal income tax purposes at the end of the preceding day (S corporation exception). The S corporation exception was added by TD 8842 (64 FR 61205; Nov. 10, 1999) to eliminate the need to file a one-day C corporation return for the day an S corporation is acquired by a consolidated group. No additional rule was necessary with respect to a qualified S corporation subsidiary (QSub) of an S corporation that joins a consolidated group. See § 1.1361-5(a)(3).

    Added at the same time as the current end of the day rule, the second exception (in § 1.1502-76(b)(1)(ii)(B)) provides that if a transaction occurs on the day of S's change in status that is properly allocable to the portion of S's day after the event resulting in S's change in status, S and certain related persons must treat the transaction as occurring at the beginning of the following day for all federal income tax purposes (current next day rule). The current next day rule was added in response to comments to the 1992 NPRM suggesting that the current end of the day rule created a “seller beware” problem with respect to S's tax items arising on the day of S's change in status but after the event causing S's change in status. Commenters suggested that, for example, if consolidated group A sold the stock of S to consolidated group B, and group B caused S to sell one of its divisions on the same day it was acquired by group B, the gain from the sale of the division would be inappropriately allocable to group A's consolidated return. Commenters recommended that final regulations adopt rules substantially similar to the current next day rule to protect the reasonable expectations of sellers and buyers of S's stock. Commenters suggested that a rule providing this type of protection was most appropriate with respect to extraordinary items, and some commenters suggested that a rule similar to the current next day rule should operate unless the seller and buyer of S agreed otherwise.

    3. Proposed Regulations A. Overview

    The IRS and the Treasury Department have determined that changes should be made to the regulations under § 1.1502-76(b) due to uncertainty regarding the appropriate application of the current next day rule. These proposed regulations address this concern as well as additional concerns with the current regulations, as summarized in this section 3.A. and discussed in greater detail in sections 3.B. through 3.K. of this preamble.

    To provide certainty, the proposed regulations generally clarify the period in which S must report certain tax items by replacing the current next day rule with a new exception to the end of the day rule (proposed next day rule) that is more narrowly tailored to clearly reflect taxable income and prevent certain post-closing actions from adversely impacting S's tax return for the period ending on the day of S's change in status. The proposed next day rule applies only to “extraordinary items” (as defined in § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(ii)(C) of the proposed regulations) that result from transactions that occur on the day of S's change in status, but after the event causing the change, and that would be taken into account by S on that day. This rule requires those extraordinary items to be allocated to S's tax return for the period beginning the next day. The proposed next day rule is expressly inapplicable to any extraordinary item that arises simultaneously with the event that causes S's change in status.

    The proposed regulations further clarify that fees for services rendered in connection with S's change in status constitute a “compensation-related deduction” for purposes of § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(ii)(C)(9) (if payment of the fees would give rise to a deduction), and therefore an extraordinary item. The proposed regulations also clarify that the anti-avoidance rule in § 1.1502-76(b)(3) may apply to situations in which a person modifies an existing contract or other agreement in anticipation of S's change in status.

    The proposed regulations also add a rule (previous day rule, described in section 3.C. of this preamble) to clarify the application of the S corporation exception. In addition, the proposed regulations limit the scope of the end of the day rule, the next day rule, the S corporation exception, and the previous day rule to determining the period in which S must report certain tax items and determining the treatment of an asset or a tax item for purposes of sections 382(h) and 1374 (as opposed to applying for all federal income tax purposes).

    Additionally, the proposed regulations provide that short taxable years resulting from intercompany transactions to which section 381(a) applies (intercompany section 381 transactions) are not taken into account in determining the carryover period for a tax item of the distributor or transferor member in the intercompany section 381 transaction or for purposes of section 481(a). Furthermore, the proposed regulations provide that the due date for filing S's separate return for the taxable year that ends as a result of S becoming a member is not accelerated if S ceases to exist in the same consolidated return year.

    The proposed regulations make several other conforming and non-substantive changes to the current regulations as well. Finally, the proposed regulations add several examples to illustrate the proposed rules.

    The IRS and the Treasury Department note that neither the current regulations nor the proposed regulations are intended to supersede general rules in the Code and regulations concerning whether an item is otherwise includible or deductible.

    B. Proposed Next Day Rule

    The current next day rule provides that S and certain related persons must treat a transaction as occurring at the beginning of the day following S's change in status if the transaction occurs on the day of S's change in status and is “properly allocable” to the portion of that day following S's change in status. The IRS and the Treasury Department believe, however, that the standards provided in the current next day rule for determining whether a transaction is “properly allocable” to the portion of S's day after the event resulting in S's change in status have been inappropriately interpreted by taxpayers. The current next day rule provides that a determination of whether a transaction is “properly allocable” to the portion of S's day after the event resulting in S's change in status is respected if it is “reasonable and consistently applied by all affected persons.” In determining whether an allocation is “reasonable,” certain factors enumerated in the current regulations are to be considered, including whether tax items arising from the same transaction are allocated inconsistently. Some taxpayers have interpreted these rules as providing flexibility in reporting tax items that result from transactions occurring on the day of S's change in status so that those items can be allocated by agreement to the day of, or to the day following, S's change in status. The IRS and the Treasury Department view this interpretation of the current next day rule as inappropriate because it effectively would permit taxpayers to elect the income tax return on which these tax items are reported and therefore may not result in an allocation that clearly reflects taxable income. This electivity is inconsistent with the purpose of § 1.1502-76(b) to clearly reflect the income of S and the consolidated group. Further, the IRS and the Treasury Department have observed that the current regulations create controversy between taxpayers and the IRS as to whether certain of S's tax items that become reportable on the day of S's change in status are properly allocated to S's tax return for the period ending that day rather than to S's tax return for the period beginning the next day.

    The proposed next day rule is intended to eliminate the perceived electivity and the source of these controversies. Under the proposed regulations, the application of the proposed next day rule is mandatory rather than elective—if an extraordinary item results from a transaction that occurs on the day of S's change in status, but after the event resulting in the change, and if the item would be taken into account by S on that day, the transaction resulting in the extraordinary item is treated as occurring at the beginning of the following day for purposes of determining the period in which S must report the item.

    The proposed regulations also provide that the proposed next day rule is inapplicable to items that arise simultaneously with the event that causes S's change in status. Under the end of the day rule (as revised by these proposed regulations), those items are reported on S's tax return for the short period ending on the day of S's change in status. The proposed regulations are expected to afford taxpayers and the IRS greater certainty regarding the period to which S's tax items resulting from such a transaction are allocated.

    C. Previous Day Rule

    As noted in section 2 of this preamble, the special rule for S corporations provides an exception to the end of the day rule if an S corporation joins a consolidated group. To avoid creating a one-day C corporation tax return for the termination date, the S corporation exception provides that S becomes a member of the group at the beginning of the termination date, and that S's taxable year ends for all federal income tax purposes at the end of the preceding day.

    Although these proposed regulations retain the S corporation exception, the proposed regulations add a previous day rule that mirrors the principles of the proposed next day rule. Whereas the proposed next day rule requires extraordinary items resulting from transactions that occur on the day of S's change in status (but after the event causing the change) to be allocated to S's tax return for the short period that begins the following day, the previous day rule requires extraordinary items resulting from transactions that occur on the termination date (but before or simultaneously with the event causing S's status as an S corporation to terminate) to be allocated to S's tax return for the short period that ends on the previous day (that is, the day preceding the termination date).

    D. Revised Scope of the End of the Day Rule and Related Rules

    Under the current end of the day rule, S becomes or ceases to be a member at the end of the day on which its status as a member changes, and its tax year ends “for all federal income tax purposes” at the end of that day. However, applying the end of the day rule for purposes other than the reporting of S's tax items could yield results inconsistent with other consolidated return rules. For example, under §§ 1.1502-13 and 1.1502-80(d)(1), if a member contributes property subject to a liability in excess of the property's basis to a nonmember in exchange for the nonmember's stock, and if the transferee becomes a member of the transferor's consolidated group as a result of the exchange, the transaction is treated as an intercompany transaction and section 357(c) does not apply. However, if the end of the day rule applies “for all federal income tax purposes,” it may be unclear whether the transferee becomes a member “immediately after the transaction,” whether the transaction is an intercompany transaction, and whether section 357(c) could apply to the transaction.

    To eliminate possible confusion arising from application of the current end of the day rule and related rules, these proposed regulations provide that the end of the day rule, the proposed next day rule, the S corporation exception, and the previous day rule apply for purposes of determining the period in which S must report its tax items, as well as for purposes of sections 382(h) and 1374 (discussed in section 3.I. of this preamble).

    E. Extraordinary Items

    The proposed next day rule mandatorily applies to extraordinary items that result from a transaction that occurs on the day of S's change in status but after the event that causes the change. In contrast, the previous day rule mandatorily applies to extraordinary items that result from a transaction that occurs on the day of S's change in status but before or simultaneously with the event that causes S's status as an S corporation to terminate.

    One category of extraordinary items, set forth in § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(ii)(C)(9) of the current regulations, applies to any “compensation-related deduction in connection with S's change in status.” The proposed regulations clarify that this category of extraordinary items includes (among other items) a deduction for fees for services rendered in connection with S's change in status. For example, if payment of a fee for the services of a financial adviser is contingent upon a successful acquisition of S's stock, to the extent the fee gives rise to a deduction, the deduction for the accrual of that expense is an extraordinary item, and the deduction is allowable only in S's taxable year that ends at the close of the day of the change.

    The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments as to whether the list of extraordinary items set forth in § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(ii)(C) should be modified to include any item not currently listed or whether any item currently included should be deleted or modified. Specifically, the IRS and the Treasury Department are considering whether the item in § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(ii)(C)(5) (“[a]ny item carried to or from any portion of the original year (e.g., a net operating loss carried under section 172), and any section 481(a) adjustment”) should be modified to include “any section 481(a) adjustment or the acceleration thereof,” and whether the item in § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(ii)(C)(6) (“[t]he effects of any change in accounting method initiated by the filing of the appropriate form after S's change in status”) should continue to be included in the list of extraordinary items.

    The IRS and the Treasury Department also request comments as to whether any extraordinary item should be excluded, in whole or in part, from application of the next day rule and the previous day rule. In particular, the IRS and the Treasury Department request comments as to whether the extraordinary items set forth in § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(ii)(C)(5) and (6) of the current regulations should be excluded, in whole or in part, from application of these rules.

    F. Ratable Allocation

    Rather than require S to perform a closing of the books on the day of its change in status, the current regulations under § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(ii) permit S's tax items, other than the extraordinary items, to be ratably allocated between S's two short taxable years if certain conditions are met. The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments as to whether S no longer should be permitted to elect to ratably allocate its tax items between the periods ending and beginning with S's change in status.

    G. Certain Foreign Entities

    Solely for purposes of determining the short taxable year of S to which the items of a passthrough entity in which S owns an interest are allocated, § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(vi)(A) of the current regulations generally provides that S is treated as selling or exchanging its entire interest in the entity immediately before S's change in status. This rule does not apply to certain foreign corporations the ownership of which may give rise to deemed income inclusions under the Code. In addition, a deemed income inclusion from a foreign corporation and a deferred tax amount from a passive foreign investment company under section 1291 are treated as extraordinary items under § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(ii)(C)(11). The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments as to whether such deemed income inclusions or deferred tax amounts should continue to be treated as extraordinary items, whether rules having similar effects to the rule in § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(vi)(A) relating to passthrough entities should be adopted for controlled foreign corporations and passive foreign investment companies in which S owns an interest, and whether any other changes should be made to § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(vi) of the current regulations.

    H. Anti-Avoidance Rule

    Under § 1.1502-76(b)(3) of the current regulations, if any person acts with a principal purpose contrary to the purposes of § 1.1502-76(b) to substantially reduce the federal income tax liability of any person (prohibited purpose), adjustments must be made as necessary to carry out the purposes of § 1.1502-76 of the current regulations (anti-avoidance rule). The proposed regulations clarify that the anti-avoidance rule may apply to situations in which a person modifies an existing contract or other agreement in anticipation of S's change in status in order to shift an item between the taxable years that end and begin as a result of S's change in status if such actions are undertaken with a prohibited purpose. The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments regarding this proposed amendment to the anti-avoidance rule.

    I. Coordination With Sections 382(h) and 1374 1. Section 382

    For purposes of section 382, the term recognized built-in loss (RBIL) means any loss recognized during the recognition period on the disposition of any asset held by the loss corporation immediately before the date of the section 382 ownership change (change date), to the extent the loss reflects a built-in loss on the change date. Section 382(h)(2)(B). The term recognition period means the five-year period beginning on the change date. Section 382(h)(7)(A).

    Section 382(h)(1)(B) generally provides that if a loss corporation has a net unrealized built-in loss (NUBIL), then any RBIL taken into account in a taxable year any portion of which falls in the recognition period (recognition period taxable year) is treated as a deduction subject to the loss corporation's section 382 limitation as if the RBIL were a pre-change loss. The amount of RBILs subject to the section 382 limitation in any recognition period taxable year is limited, however, to the excess of the NUBIL over total RBILs in prior taxable years ending in the recognition period. (The amount of such excess is referred to in this preamble as the outstanding NUBIL balance.) In other words, the amount of the NUBIL limits the amount of RBILs that are treated as pre-change losses, and any built-in loss treated as an RBIL further reduces the outstanding NUBIL balance.

    In many cases, the event that causes S's change in status for purposes of § 1.1502-76(b)(1)(ii) also causes S to undergo an ownership change for purposes of section 382. Thus, an item of deduction or loss that becomes reportable on the day of S's change in status falls within the recognition period beginning that day, even if the item is allocated to S's short period ending that day under the end of the day rule. As a consequence, an item that should be a pre-change loss is treated as an RBIL that reduces the outstanding NUBIL balance. For example, assume consolidated group A sells all of S's stock to consolidated group B. If on the day of S's change in status (but before the event causing the change), S recognizes a loss on the sale of an asset, under the end of the day rule the loss is reported on group A's consolidated return. However, notwithstanding that the loss may not be claimed by group B, the loss may be treated as an RBIL and reduce the outstanding NUBIL balance.

    To prevent such an outcome, these proposed regulations provide that, for purposes of section 382(h), items includible in the short taxable year that ends as a result of S's change in status (including items allocated to that taxable year under the end of the day rule) are not treated as occurring in the recognition period. Rather, only items includible in S's short taxable year that begins as a result of S's change in status (including items allocated to that taxable year under the proposed next day rule) are treated as occurring in the recognition period. Therefore, the beginning of the recognition period for purposes of section 382(h) would correspond with the beginning of S's short taxable year that begins on the day after S's change in status.

    2. Section 1374

    Section 1374 generally imposes a corporate-level tax (section 1374 tax) on the recognition of gain by an S corporation that formerly was a C corporation (or that acquired assets from a C corporation in a transferred basis transaction) during a recognition period specified in section 1374(d)(7) (section 1374 recognition period), but only to the extent of the corporation's net recognized built-in gain (as defined in section 1374(d)(2)) for a given taxable year. The section 1374 tax also applies to certain tax items attributable to the corporation's C corporation taxable years. In addition, regulations under section 337(d) extend section 1374 treatment to (1) a C corporation's conversion to a real estate investment trust (REIT), regulated investment company (RIC), and certain tax-exempt entities, or (2) certain cases in which a REIT, RIC, or tax-exempt entity acquires assets in a transferred basis transaction from a C corporation.

    As with the application of section 382(h), the event that causes S's change in status for purposes of § 1.1502-76(b)(1)(ii) may be the event that results in S being a corporation that is subject to the section 1374 tax. Therefore, it is necessary to determine in which return (the group's consolidated return or S's separate return beginning the day after S's change in status) S's tax items for the day of S's change in status are included. Similarly, if the event that causes S's change in status for purposes of § 1.1502-76(b)(1)(ii) is the event that results in S ceasing to be a corporation subject to the section 1374 tax, it is necessary to determine in which return (the group's consolidated return or S's separate return for the period ending the day before S's change in status) S's tax items for the day of S's change in status are included. The proposed regulations thus provide that if S ceases to be a corporation subject to the section 1374 tax upon becoming a member, or if S elects to be a corporation that is subject to the section 1374 tax for its first separate return year after ceasing to be a member, S's items of recognized built-in gain or loss for purposes of section 1374 will include only the amounts reported on S's separate return (including items reported on that return under the previous day rule or the next day rule).

    J. Intercompany Section 381 Transactions

    Under the current consolidated return regulations, if a member distributes or transfers its assets to another corporation that is a member immediately after the distribution or transfer in an intercompany section 381 transaction, and if the distributor or transferor member has a net operating loss carryover or a net capital loss carryover, the distributor or transferor member will not be treated as having a short taxable year for purposes of determining the years to which the loss may be carried. Sections 1.1502-21(b)(3)(iii) and 1.1502-22(b)(4).

    These proposed regulations would amend current law by moving these rules to § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(i) and making conforming changes to §§ 1.1502-21(b)(3)(iii) and 1.1502-22(b)(4). In addition, these proposed regulations would expand these rules by providing that a short taxable year of the distributor or transferor member by reason of an intercompany section 381 transaction is not counted as a separate taxable year for purposes of determining either the taxable years to which any tax attribute of the distributor or transferor member may be carried or the taxable years in which an adjustment under section 481(a) is taken into account. No inference should be drawn from the proposed changes to these rules as to whether a short taxable year of a member resulting from an intercompany section 381 transaction is counted under current law for purposes of determining the years to which a tax credit may be carried or in which a section 481 adjustment is taken into account.

    K. Due Date for Filing Tax Returns

    The proposed regulations also eliminate a provision that could cause taxpayers to inadvertently miss a return filing deadline. Under § 1.1502-76(b)(4) of the current regulations, if S joins a consolidated group, the due date for filing S's separate return is the earlier of the due date (with extensions) of the group's return or the due date (with extensions) of S's return if S had not joined the group. If S goes out of existence during the consolidated return year in which S joins a group, its taxable year would end. Under section 6072, the due date for S's short period return would be the 15th day of the third month (ninth month, with extensions) following the date on which S ceases to exist. Accordingly, if S ceases to exist during the same consolidated return year in which it becomes a member, the due date for S's tax return for the short period that ended as a result of S becoming a member could be accelerated. To prevent a taxpayer from inadvertently missing a filing date and being subject to potential penalties for filing a late return, the proposed regulations provide that if S goes out of existence in the same consolidated return year in which it becomes a member, the due date for filing S's separate return is determined without regard to S's ceasing to exist.

    L. Non-Substantive Changes

    In addition to the changes described in this preamble, the proposed regulations make several non-substantive changes to the current regulations, including moving an example concerning § 1.1502-80(d) from the text of § 1.1502-76(b)(1)(ii)(B)(2) of the current regulations to § 1.1502-13(c)(7)(ii), Example 3(e).

    Effective/Applicability Date

    The amendments to §§ 1.1502-21(b)(3)(iii), 1.1502-22(b)(4)(i), 1.1502-76(b)(2)(i), and 1.1502-76(b)(4) will apply to consolidated return years beginning on or after the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register. The other amendments to § 1.1502-76(b) will apply to corporations becoming or ceasing to be members of consolidated groups on or after the date these regulations are published 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 is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that the regulations apply only to transactions involving corporations that file consolidated federal income tax returns, and that such corporations tend to be larger businesses. Accordingly, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these regulations will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.

    Comments and Public Hearing

    Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the “Addresses” heading. The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments on all aspects of the proposed rules. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing may be scheduled if requested in writing by any person who timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing will be published in the Federal Register.

    Drafting Information

    The principal author of these proposed regulations is Russell G. Jones of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department 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 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Section 1.1361-5 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1361. * * *

    Section 1.1362-3 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1362. * * *

    Section 1.1502-13 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1502. * * *

    Section 1.1502-21 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1502. * * *

    Section 1.1502-22 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1502. * * *

    Section 1.1502-28 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1502. * * *

    Section 1.1502-76 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 382(m) and 26 U.S.C. 1502. * * *

    § 1.1361-5 [Amended]
    Par. 2. Section 1.1361-5 is amended: 1. In paragraph (a)(3), by removing “§ 1.1502-76(b)(1)(ii)(A)(2) (relating to a special rule” and adding “§ 1.1502-76(b)(1)(ii)(B) (relating to special rules” in its place. 2. In paragraph (a)(4), Example 4, by removing “§ 1.1502-76(b)(1)(ii)(A)(2)” and adding “§ 1.1502-76(b)(1)(ii)(B)(1)” in its place.
    § 1.1362-3 [Amended]
    Par. 3. Section 1.1362-3 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing “§ 1.1502-76(b)(1)(ii)(A)(2)” and adding “§ 1.1502-76(b)(1)(ii)(B)” in its place. Par. 4. Section 1.1502-13 is amended by adding Example 3(e) to paragraph (c)(7)(ii) to read as follows:
    § 1.1502-13 Intercompany transactions.

    (c) * * *

    (7) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    Example 3.

    * * *

    (e) Liability in excess of basis. The facts are the same as in paragraph (a) of this Example 3, except that S and B are not members of the same consolidated group immediately before S's transfer of the land to B, and the land is encumbered with an $80 liability. Immediately after the transfer, S and B are members of the same consolidated group. Thus, the transfer is an intercompany transaction to which section 357(c) does not apply pursuant to § 1.1502-80(d).

    Par. 5. Section 1.1502-21 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3)(iii) and adding paragraph (h)(1)(iv) to read as follows:
    § 1.1502-21 Net operating losses.

    (b) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (iii) Short years in connection with intercompany transactions to which section 381(a) applies. If a member distributes or transfers assets in an intercompany transaction to which section 381(a) applies, see § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(i).

    (h) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iv) Paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section applies to consolidated return years beginning on or after the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register. For transactions occurring before the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register, see § 1.1502-21(b) as contained in 26 CFR part 1, revised as of April 1 preceding the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register.

    Par. 6. Section 1.1502-22 is amended by: 1. Revising paragraph (b)(4)(i). 2. Revising the heading of paragraph (h). 3. Adding paragraph (h)(1)(iii).

    The revisions and addition read as follows:

    § 1.1502-22 Consolidated capital gain and loss.

    (b) * * *

    (4) Special rules—(i) Short years in connection with intercompany transactions to which section 381(a) applies. If a member distributes or transfers assets in an intercompany transaction to which section 381(a) applies, see § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(i).

    (h) Effective/applicability date

    (1) * * *

    (iii) Paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section applies to consolidated return years beginning on or after the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register. For transactions occurring before the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register, see § 1.1502-22(b) as contained in 26 CFR part 1, revised as of April 1 preceding the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register.

    § 1.1502-28 [Amended]
    Par. 7. Section 1.1502-28 is amended in paragraph (b)(11) by removing “§ 1.1502-76(b)(1)(ii)(B)” and adding “§ 1.1502-76(b)(1)(ii)(A)(2)” in its place. Par. 8. Section 1.1502-76 is amended: 1. By adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (b)(1)(i). 2. By revising paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B). 3. By adding paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(D). 4. By adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (b)(2)(i). 5. By revising paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C)(9). 6. By removing the last sentence of paragraph (b)(2)(iii). 7. By removing the last sentence of paragraph (b)(2)(v). 8. In paragraph (b)(2)(vi)(C) by removing “paragraph (b)(2)(v)” and adding “paragraph (b)(2)(vi)” in its place. 9. By revising paragraph (b)(3). 10. By adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (b)(4). 11. By adding Examples 8, 9, and 10 to paragraph (b)(5). 12. By revising paragraph (b)(6).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 1.1502-76 Taxable year of members of group.

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) * * * If a corporation (S) becomes or ceases to be a member in a stock disposition or purchase for which an election under section 336(e) or section 338 is made, paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), and (b)(2)(iii) of this section do not apply to the transaction.

    (ii) * * *

    (A) In general—(1) End of the day rule. If S becomes or ceases to be a member during a consolidated return year, S's tax year ends, and (except as provided in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A)(2) or paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) of this section) for purposes of determining the period in which S must report an item of income, gain, deduction, loss, or credit, S is treated as becoming or ceasing to be a member at the end of the day on which its status as a member changes (end of the day rule).

    (2) Next day rule. If an extraordinary item (as defined in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C) of this section) results from a transaction that occurs on the day of S's change in status as a member, but after the event resulting in the change, and the item would be taken into account by S on that day, the transaction resulting in the extraordinary item is treated as occurring at the beginning of the following day for purposes of determining the period in which S must report the item (next day rule). The next day rule does not apply to any extraordinary item that becomes includible or deductible simultaneously with the event that causes the change in S's status.

    (B) Special rules for former S corporations—(1) Beginning of the day rule. If an election under section 1362(a) is in effect for S immediately before S becomes a member, S is treated as becoming a member at the beginning of the day the termination of its election under section 1362(a) is effective (termination date), and S's taxable year ends at the end of the day preceding the termination date. See § 1.1361-5(a)(3) for the treatment of certain qualified S corporation subsidiaries.

    (2) Previous day rule. If an extraordinary item (as defined in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C) of this section) results from a transaction that occurs on the termination date, but before or simultaneously with the event resulting in the termination of S's election under section 1362(a), and the item would be taken into account by S on that day, the transaction resulting in the extraordinary item is treated as occurring at the end of the previous day for purposes of determining the period in which S must report the item (previous day rule). See § 1.1361-5(a)(3) for the treatment of certain qualified S corporation subsidiaries.

    (D) Coordination with sections 382 and 1374. If the day of S's change in status is also the date of an ownership change for purposes of section 382, the rules and principles of this section apply in determining the treatment of any item or asset for purposes of section 382(h). Accordingly, if the day of S's change in status is also a change date, the determination of net unrealized built-in gain or loss will reflect the application of both the end of the day rule and the next day rule, to the extent each applies. Moreover, items includible in the taxable year that ends as a result of S's change in status are not treated as occurring in the recognition period described in section 382(h)(7)(A), and items includible in the taxable year that begins as a result of S's change in status are treated as occurring in the recognition period. If S ceases to be a corporation subject to the tax imposed by section 1374 upon becoming a member of a consolidated group, or if S elects to be a corporation that is subject to such tax for its first separate return year after ceasing to be a member, S's items of recognized built-in gain or loss for purposes of section 1374 will include only the amounts reported on S's separate return (including items reported on that return under the previous day rule or the next day rule).

    (2) * * *

    (i) * * * If a member distributes or transfers assets in an intercompany transaction to which section 381(a) applies, a short taxable year of the distributor or transferor corporation is not taken into account either for purposes of determining the taxable years to which any tax attribute of the distributor or transferor corporation may be carried or for purposes of determining the taxable years in which an adjustment under section 481(a) is taken into account.

    (ii) * * *

    (C) * * *

    (9) Any compensation-related deduction in connection with S's change in status (including, for example, a deduction for fees for services rendered in connection with S's change in status and for bonus, severance, and option cancellation payments made in connection with S's change in status);

    (3) Anti-avoidance rule. If any person acts with a principal purpose contrary to the purposes of this paragraph (b) to substantially reduce the federal income tax liability of any person (including by modifying an existing contract or other agreement in anticipation of a change in S's status to shift an item between the taxable years that end and begin as a result of S's change in status), adjustments must be made as necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.

    (4) * * * In addition, if S ceases to exist in the same consolidated return year in which S becomes a member, the due date for filing S's separate return shall be determined without regard to S's ceasing to exist in that year.

    (5) * * *

    Example 8.

    Allocation of certain amounts that become deductible on the day of S's change in status—(a) Facts. P purchases all of the stock of S, an accrual-basis, stand-alone C corporation, on June 30 pursuant to a stock purchase agreement. At the time of the stock purchase, S has outstanding nonqualified stock options issued to certain employees. The options did not have a readily ascertainable fair market value when granted, and the options do not provide for a deferral of compensation (as defined in § 1.409A-1(b)). Under the option agreements, S is obligated to pay its employees certain amounts in cancellation of their stock options upon a change in control of S. P's purchase of S's stock causes a change in control of S, and S's obligation to make option cancellation payments to its employees becomes fixed and determinable upon the closing of the stock purchase. Several days after the closing of the stock purchase, S pays its employees the amounts required under the option agreements.

    (b) Analysis. P's purchase of S's stock causes S to become a member of the P group at the end of the day on June 30. Under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C)(9) of this section, a deduction arising from S's liability to pay its employees in cancellation of their stock options in connection with S's change in status is an extraordinary item that cannot be prorated and must be allocated to June 30. The next day rule is inapplicable to this deduction because S's liability to pay its employees becomes deductible on the day of S's change in status simultaneously with the event that causes S's change in status. Consequently, a deduction for the option cancellation payments must be reported under the end of the day rule on S's tax return for the period ending June 30.

    (c) Success-based fees. The facts are the same as in paragraph (a) of this Example 8, except that S also engages a consulting firm to provide services in connection with P's purchase of S's stock. Under the terms of the engagement letter, S's obligation to pay for these services is contingent upon the successful closing of the stock purchase. The stock purchase closes successfully, and S's obligation to pay its consultants becomes fixed and determinable at closing. To the extent S's payment of a success-based fee to its consultants is otherwise deductible, this item is an extraordinary item that cannot be prorated and must be reported under the end of the day rule on S's return for the period ending June 30. (See paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C)(9) of this section.) The next day rule is inapplicable to the deduction because S's liability to pay its consultants becomes deductible on the day of S's change in status simultaneously with the event that causes S's change in status.

    (d) Unwanted assets. The facts are the same as in paragraph (a) of this Example 8, except that, after closing on June 30, S sells to an unrelated party certain assets used in S's trade or business that are not wanted by the P group. Gain or loss on the sale of these assets is an extraordinary item that results from a transaction that occurs on the day of S's change in status, but after the event resulting in the change. Consequently, under the next day rule, the gain or loss must be reported on S's tax return for the period beginning July 1.

    Example 9.

    Redemption that causes a change in status—(a) Facts. P owns 80 shares of S's only class of outstanding stock, and a person whose ownership of S stock is not attributed to P under section 302(c) owns the remaining 20 shares. On June 30, S distributes land with a basis of $100 and a fair market value of $140 to P in redemption of all of P's stock in S.

    (b) Analysis. As a result of the redemption, S ceases to be a member of P's consolidated group on June 30. S will recognize $40 of gain under section 311(b) on the distribution of the land to P. The next day rule is inapplicable because S's gain becomes includible on the day of S's change in status simultaneously with the event that causes S's change in status. Consequently, S's gain must be reported under the end of the day rule in its taxable year ending June 30, during which S was a member of the P group. Under § 1.1502-32(b)(2)(i), P's basis in its S stock is increased to reflect S's $40 gain immediately before the redemption of S's stock.

    (c) Partial redemption. The facts are the same as in paragraph (a) of this Example 9, except that S distributes the land to P in redemption of 20 shares of P's stock in S. Thus, immediately after the redemption, P owns 75% (60 shares/80 shares) of S's outstanding stock, and S's minority shareholder owns 25% (20 shares/80 shares). The redemption does not satisfy the requirements of section 302(b) and is treated under section 302(d) as a distribution to which section 301 applies. The end of the day rule does not apply for purposes of determining whether P and S are members of the same consolidated group immediately after the redemption. Because P owns only 75% of S's stock immediately after the redemption, the distribution is not an intercompany distribution described in § 1.1502-13(f)(2)(i). Thus, P may not exclude any amount of the distribution that is a dividend, and P's basis in S's stock is not reduced under § 1.1502-32(b)(2)(iv). P may be entitled to a dividends received deduction under section 243(c) (but see section 1059(e)). For the reasons discussed in paragraph (b) of this Example 9, S's gain under section 311(b) must be reported under the end of the day rule in S's taxable year ending June 30, during which S was a member of the P group.

    (d) Distribution of loss property. The facts are the same as in paragraph (a) of this Example 9, except that the land distributed by S to P has a fair market value of $60 rather than $140. The end of the day rule applies for purposes of determining the taxable year in which S must take into account its realized loss on the distribution of the land. Thus, under the end of the day rule, S's loss on the distribution of the land, which occurs simultaneously with S's ceasing to be a member, is taken into account in S's taxable year that ends as a result of the redemption. However, the end of the day rule does not apply for other purposes; for example, the rule does not apply in determining whether the transaction is an intercompany distribution or in determining the attributes (as defined in § 1.1502-13(b)(6)) of the loss. Therefore, because S is not a member immediately after the distribution, S's loss on the distribution is not recognized under section 311(a). Under the end of the day rule, the loss is taken into account as a noncapital, nondeductible expense on the P group's consolidated return, and under § 1.1502-32(b)(1)(i), P's basis in its S stock is decreased by $40 immediately before S leaves the group.

    Example 10. Extraordinary item of S corporation—(a) Facts. On July 1, P purchases all the stock of S, an accrual-basis corporation with an election in effect under section 1362(a). Prior to the sale, S had engaged a consulting firm to find a buyer for S's stock, and the consulting firm's fee was contingent upon the successful closing of the sale of S's stock.

    (b) Analysis. To the extent S's payment of the success-based fee to its consultants is otherwise deductible, this item is an extraordinary item (see paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C)(9) of this section) that becomes deductible on July 1 simultaneously with the event that terminates S's election as an S corporation. Under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B)(2) of this section, S's obligation to pay the fee is treated as becoming deductible on June 30 under the previous day rule.

    (6) Effective/applicability date. Paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(4) of this section apply to consolidated return years beginning on or after the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register. Otherwise, this paragraph (b) applies to corporations becoming or ceasing to be members of consolidated groups on or after the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register.

    John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05123 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 28 CFR Part 15 [Docket No. CIV 150; AG Order No. 3504-2015] RIN 1105-AB37 Determination That an Individual Shall Not Be Deemed an Employee of the Public Health Service AGENCY:

    Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The proposed rule proposes criteria and a process by which the Attorney General or designee may determine that an individual shall not be deemed an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes of coverage under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be postmarked on or before May 5, 2015, and electronic comments must be sent on or before midnight Eastern time May 5, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. CIV 150” on all written and electronic correspondence. Written comments being sent via regular or express mail should be sent to James G. Touhey, Jr., Director, Torts Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Room 8098N National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530. Comments may also be sent electronically through http://www.regulations.gov using the electronic comment form provided on that site. An electronic copy of this document is also available at the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. The Department will accept attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, Adobe PDF, or Excel file formats only. The Department will not accept any file formats other than those specifically listed here.

    Please note that the Department is requesting that electronic comments be submitted before midnight Eastern Time on the day the comment period closes because http://www.regulations.gov terminates the public's ability to submit comments at midnight Eastern Time on the day the comment period closes. Commenters in time zones other than Eastern Time may want to consider this so that their electronic comments are received. All comments sent via regular or express mail will be considered timely if postmarked on the day the comment period closes.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James G. Touhey, Jr., Director, Torts Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 616-4400.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Posting of Public Comments. Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection online at http://www.regulations.gov and in the Department's public docket. Such information includes personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter.

    You are not required to submit personal identifying information in order to comment on this rule. Nevertheless, if you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online or made available in the public docket, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also place all the personal identifying information you do not want posted online or made available in the public docket in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.

    If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online or made available in the public docket, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted online or made available in the public docket.

    Personal identifying information and confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will be redacted and the comment, in redacted form, will be posted online and placed in the Department's public docket file. Please note that the Freedom of Information Act applies to all comments received. If you wish to inspect the agency's public docket file in person by appointment, please see the “For Further Information” paragraph.

    Discussion

    The Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Acts of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-501) and 1995 (Pub. L. 104-73) amended section 224 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 233) to make the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) (28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671-2680) the exclusive remedy for personal injury or death resulting from the performance of medical, surgical, dental or related functions by federally supported health centers and their employees, to the extent the centers and employees have been deemed by the Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services, to be eligible for FTCA coverage. Section 233(i) of title 42 provides that the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), may on the record determine, after notice and an opportunity for a full and fair hearing, that an individual physician or other licensed or certified health care practitioner who is an officer, employee, or contractor of an entity described in 42 U.S.C. 233(g)(4) shall not be deemed to be an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 233 if “treating such individual as such an employee would expose the Government to an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss” based on certain prescribed circumstances. This proposed rule proposes that the determination may be made based on one or more of the following statutory criteria: (1) The individual does not comply with the policies and procedures that the entity has implemented pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 233(h)(1); (2) the individual has a history of claims filed against him or her as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 233 that is outside the norm for licensed or certified health care practitioners within the same specialty; (3) the individual refused to reasonably cooperate with the Attorney General in defending against any such claim; (4) the individual provided false information relevant to the individual's performance of his or her duties to the Secretary, the Attorney General, or an applicant for or recipient of funds under title 42 chapter 6A; or (5) the individual was the subject of disciplinary action taken by a state medical licensing authority or a state or national professional society.

    The proposed rule proposes a process for making such a determination. The first step, pursuant to § 15.13(a), is a determination by the “initiating official,” who is a Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice's Civil Division, that treating an individual as an employee of the Public Health Service may expose the Government to an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss. Section 15.13(a) requires the initiating official, after consultation with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, to provide notice to the individual in question that an administrative hearing will be held to determine whether treating the individual as an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 233(g) would expose the United States to an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss. Following a period for discovery and depositions, to the extent determined appropriate by an administrative law judge under § 15.15, the hearing is then conducted by the administrative law judge in the manner prescribed in § 15.14. After the hearing is conducted and the record is closed, § 15.16 requires the administrative law judge to submit written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended decision to the “adjudicating official,” who is the Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice's Civil Division. Section 15.17(b) then gives the parties 30 days to submit certain additional materials, including exceptions to the administrative law judge's recommended decision, to the adjudicating official, who then must make a final agency determination of whether treating the individual as an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 233(g) would expose the United States to an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss. Section 15.18 provides that an individual who is dissatisfied with the determination may seek rehearing within 30 days after notice of the determination is sent, and § 15.20 allows individuals who have been determined to expose the United States to an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss to apply for reinstatement after a period of time. Consistent with 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7e(a) and 45 CFR 60.3, 60.5(h) and 60.16, the rule also provides for the Department to notify the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), a confidential information clearinghouse created by Congress with primary goals of improving health care quality and protecting the public, of the issuance of a final order deeming an individual not to be an employee of the Public Health Service under this rule.

    This proposed rule would add a new subpart B in part 15 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, containing the regulations of the Department of Justice governing such a determination.

    The Department invites comments on any issues relating to the proposed rule.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), has reviewed this proposed rule and, by approving it, certifies that it would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it pertains to personnel and administrative matters affecting the Department.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and in accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.”

    The Department of Justice has determined that this proposed rule is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and accordingly this proposed rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    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. The Department has assessed the costs and benefits of this proposed rule and believes that its benefits would justify its costs. As an initial matter, the Department does not expect that the proposed rule would have systemic or large-scale costs, because it is only the exceptional provider who would be subject to a de-deeming proceeding or determination; proceedings under this proposed rule would be rare and would not affect the overwhelming majority of patients, providers, or health centers. The costs associated with the proposed rule, then, would come in the individual instances of its application. A de-deeming administrative process would impose certain limited litigation-like costs, but §§ 15.14 and 15.15 provide flexibility that will enable the parties and administrative law judge to avoid unduly burdensome costs when those costs are unnecessary. In the event that an individual is ultimately determined to expose the United States to an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss, there will be certain costs and benefits to patients, providers, and health centers. A provider who is deemed not to be a member of the Public Health Service may be required to obtain his or her own medical malpractice insurance (as may the health center, for matters involving the provider that are determined not to be covered by the FTCA) or leave the practice. If the individual leaves the practice, the employing center may incur costs of replacing him or her with a new provider. The Department expects that substantial benefits will arise from such replacements, as any individual who is replaced will be one who has been determined to create an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss. It is thus likely that the individual's replacement will provide reduced risks of loss for the United States and better care for patients. While there may be instances in which an individual who presented such a risk of loss cannot be replaced, possibly resulting in impaired access to care for medically underserved health center patients, the Department believes that these costs are substantially outweighed by the benefits of implementing this authority.

    The Department is unable to quantify these costs at this time, as the authority to deem a provider not a member of the Public Health Service has not previously been used. However, based on the expectation that the authority will be used sparingly and only for providers who expose the United States to an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss, the Department has concluded that the net benefits of improved patient care and reduced costs of malpractice will outweigh these possible costs.

    Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This 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. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, the Department of Justice has determined that this proposed rule would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

    Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    This proposed rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This proposed rule would not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in cost or prices; significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or innovation; or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

    List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 15

    Claims, Government contracts, Government employees, Health care, Immunization, Nuclear energy.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Attorney General proposes to amend part 15 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 15—CERTIFICATIONS, DECERTIFICATIONS, AND NON-DEEMING DETERMINATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT 1. The authority citation for part 15 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301, 554, 556, 557, and 8477(e)(4); 10 U.S.C. 1054, 1089; 22 U.S.C. 2702, 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and 2679; 38 U.S.C. 7316; 42 U.S.C. 233, 2212, 2458a, and 5055(f); and sec. 2, Pub. L. 94-380, 90 Stat. 1113 (1976).

    2. The heading for part 15 is revised to read as set forth above. 3. Add a heading for subpart A to read as follows: Subpart A—Certification and Decertification in Connection With Certain Suits Based Upon Acts or Omissions of Federal Employees and Other Persons

    §§ 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, and 15.4 [Designated as Subpart A]

    4. Designate §§ 15.1 through 15.4 as subpart A.

    §§ 15.5, 15.6, 15.7, 15.8, 15.9, and 15.10 [Added and Reserved]

    5. Add reserved §§ 15.5 through 15.10 to newly designated subpart A. 6. Add subpart B to read as follows: Subpart B—Determination of Individuals Deemed Not To Be Employees of the Public Health Service Sec. 15.11 Purpose. 15.12 Definitions. 15.13 Notice of hearing. 15.14 Conduct of hearing. 15.15 Discovery. 15.16 Recommended decision. 15.17 Final agency determination. 15.18 Rehearing. 15.19 Effective date of a final agency determination. 15.20 Reinstatement.
    § 15.11 Purpose.

    (a) The purpose of this regulation is to implement the notice and hearing procedures applicable to a determination by the Attorney General or his designee under 42 U.S.C. 233(i) that an individual shall not be deemed an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 233(g).

    (b) Section 233(i) of title 42 provides that the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, may on the record determine, after notice and an opportunity for a full and fair hearing, that an individual physician or other licensed or certified health care practitioner who is an officer, employee, or contractor of an entity described in 42 U.S.C. 233(g)(4) shall not be deemed to be an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 233 if treating such individual as such an employee would expose the Government to an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss.

    § 15.12 Definitions.

    As used in this regulation:

    (a) Attorney General means the Attorney General of the United States or any designee of the Attorney General to whom authority has been delegated to conduct a hearing and to make a determination pursuant to section 233(i) of title 42, United States Code.

    (b) Adjudicating official means the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division.

    (c) Entity means an entity described in 42 U.S.C. 233(g)(4).

    (d) Health and Human Services means the Department of Health and Human Services or a division or component of the Department of Health and Human Services.

    (e) Individual means an individual physician or other licensed or certified health care practitioner who is or was an officer, employee, or contractor of an entity described in 42 U.S.C. 233(g)(4).

    (f) Initiating official means a Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice or, except for responsibilities that the initiating official must perform personally, his or her designee.

    (g) Parties means an Individual, as defined in paragraph (e) of this section, and the Initiating official, as defined in paragraph (f) of this section.

    (h) Public Health Service means the Public Health Service or a division or component of the Public Health Service.

    (i) Secretary means the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services or the Secretary's designee.

    (j) Unreasonably high degree of risk of loss is a determination based on consideration of one or more of the following criteria—

    (1) The individual does not comply with the policies and procedures that the entity has implemented pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 233(h)(1);

    (2) The individual has a history of claims filed against him or her as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 233 that is outside the norm for licensed or certified health care practitioners within the same specialty;

    (3) The individual refused to reasonably cooperate with the Attorney General in defending against any such claim;

    (4) The individual provided false information relevant to the individual's performance of his or her duties to the Secretary, the Attorney General, or an applicant for or recipient of funds under title 42, chapter 6A, United States Code; or

    (5) The individual was the subject of disciplinary action taken by a state medical licensing authority or a state or national professional society.

    § 15.13 Notice of hearing.

    (a) Whenever the initiating official personally concludes that treating an individual as an employee of the Public Health Service may expose the Government to an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss, the initiating official, after consultation with the Secretary, shall notify the individual that an administrative hearing will be conducted for the purpose of determining whether treating the individual as an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 233(g) would expose the United States to an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss.

    (b) The notice of hearing shall be in writing and shall be sent by registered or certified mail to the individual at the individual's last known address, or to the individual's attorney in the event the Attorney General has received written notice that the individual has retained counsel.

    (c) The notice shall contain:

    (1) A statement of the nature and purpose of the hearing;

    (2) The name of the administrative law judge;

    (3) A statement of the nature of the action proposed to be taken; and

    (4) A statement of the time, date, and location of the hearing.

    (d) The hearing shall be initiated not sooner than 60 days of the date on the written notice of hearing.

    § 15.14 Conduct of hearing.

    (a) An administrative law judge appointed in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 3105 shall preside over the hearing.

    (b) If the administrative law judge appointed is unacceptable to the individual, the individual shall inform the Attorney General within 14 days of the notification of the reasons for his or her position. The Attorney General may select another administrative law judge, or affirm the initial selection. In either case, the official shall inform the individual of the reasons for the decision.

    (c) The administrative law judge shall have the following powers:

    (1) Administer oaths and affirmations;

    (2) Issue subpoenas authorized by law;

    (3) Rule on offers of proof and receive relevant evidence;

    (4) Take depositions or have depositions taken when the ends of justice would be served;

    (5) Regulate the course of the hearing;

    (6) Hold conferences for the settlement or simplification of the issues by consent of the parties or by the use of alternative means of dispute resolution;

    (7) Inform the parties as to the availability of one or more alternative means of dispute resolution, and encourage use of such methods;

    (8) Dispose of procedural requests or similar matters;

    (9) Make or recommend decisions;

    (10) Require and, in the discretion of the administrative law judge, adopt proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and orders.

    (11) Take other action authorized by agency rule consistent with this subchapter;

    (12) All powers and duties reasonably necessary to perform the functions enumerated in paragraphs (c)(1) through (11) of this section.

    (d) The administrative law judge may call upon the parties to consider:

    (1) Simplification or clarification of the issues;

    (2) Stipulations, admissions, agreements on documents, or other understandings that will expedite conduct of the hearing;

    (3) Limitation of the number of witnesses and of cumulative evidence;

    (4) Such other matters as may aid in the disposition of the case.

    (e) At the discretion of the administrative law judge, parties or witnesses may participate in hearings by video conference.

    (f) All hearings under this part shall be public unless otherwise ordered by the administrative law judge.

    (g) The hearing shall be conducted in conformity with 5 U.S.C. 554-557 (sections 5-8 of the Administrative Procedure Act).

    (h) The initiating official shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence and shall generally present the government's evidence first.

    (i) Technical rules of evidence shall not apply to hearings conducted pursuant to this part, but rules designed to assure production of the most credible evidence available and to subject testimony to cross-examination shall be applied where reasonably necessary by the administrative law judge. The administrative law judge may exclude irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence. All documents and other evidence offered or taken for the record shall be open to examination by the parties, and opportunity shall be given to refute facts and arguments advanced on either side of the issues. A transcript shall be made of the oral evidence except to the extent the substance thereof is stipulated for the record.

    (j) During the time a proceeding is before an administrative law judge, all motions shall be addressed to the administrative law judge and, if within his or her delegated authority, shall be ruled upon. Any motion upon which the administrative law judge has no authority to rule shall be certified to the adjudicating official with a recommendation. The opposing party may answer within such time as may be designated by the administrative law judge. The administrative law judge may permit further replies by both parties.

    § 15.15 Discovery.

    (a) At any time after the initiation of the proceeding, the administrative law judge may order, by subpoena if necessary, the taking of a deposition and the production of relevant documents by the deponent. Such order may be entered upon a showing that the deposition is necessary for discovery purposes, and that such discovery could not be accomplished by voluntary methods. Such an order may also be entered in extraordinary circumstances to preserve relevant evidence upon a showing that there is substantial reason to believe that such evidence could not be presented through a witness at the hearing. The decisive factors for a determination under this subsection, however, shall be fairness to all parties and the requirements of due process. A deposition may be taken orally or upon written questions before any person who has the power to administer oaths and shall not exceed one day of seven hours.

    (b) Each deponent shall be duly sworn, and any adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine. Objections to questions or documents shall be in short form, stating the grounds upon which objections are made. The questions propounded and the answers thereto, together with all objections made (but not including argument or debate), shall be reduced to writing and certified by the person before whom the deposition was taken. Thereafter, the person taking the deposition shall forward the deposition and one (1) copy thereof to the party at whose instance the deposition was taken and shall forward one (1) copy to the representative of the other party.

    (c) A deposition may be admitted into evidence as against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition, or who had due notice thereof, if the administrative law judge finds that there are sufficient reasons for admission and that the admission of the evidence would be fair to all parties and comport with the requirements of due process.

    § 15.16 Recommended decision.

    Within a reasonable time after the close of the record of the hearings conducted under § 15.14, the administrative law judge shall submit written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended decision to the adjudicating official. The administrative law judge shall promptly make copies of these documents available to the parties and the Secretary.

    § 15.17 Final agency determination.

    (a) In hearings conducted under § 15.14, the adjudicating official shall make the final agency determination, on the basis of the record, findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented by the administrative law judge.

    (b) Prior to making a final agency determination, the adjudicating official shall give the parties an opportunity to submit the following, within thirty (30) days after the submission of the administrative law judge's recommendations:

    (1) Proposed findings and determinations;

    (2) Exceptions to the recommendations of the administrative law judge;

    (3) Supporting reasons for the exceptions or proposed findings or determinations; and

    (4) Final briefs summarizing the arguments presented at the hearing.

    (c) All determinations made by the adjudicating official under this rule shall constitute final agency actions. After a final agency determination under this rule that an individual shall not be deemed to be an employee of the Public Health Service, such individual will be deemed not to be an employee of the Public Health Service except pursuant to § 15.20.

    § 15.18 Rehearing.

    (a) An individual dissatisfied with a final agency determination under § 15.17 may, within 30 days after the notice of the final agency determination is sent, request the adjudicating official to re-review the record, and may present additional evidence that is appropriate and pertinent to support a different decision.

    (b) The adjudicating official may require that another oral hearing be held on one or more of the issues in controversy, or permit the dissatisfied party to present further evidence or argument in writing, if the adjudicating official finds that the individual has:

    (1) Presented evidence or argument that is sufficiently significant to require the conduct of further proceedings; or

    (2) Shown some defect in the conduct of the adjudication under this subpart sufficient to cause substantial unfairness or an erroneous finding in that adjudication.

    (c) Any rehearing ordered by the adjudicating official shall be conducted pursuant to §§ 15.13 through 15.16.

    (d) A determination that an individual may be deemed to be an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 233 pursuant to this section shall be distributed in the same manner as provided in § 15.19.

    § 15.19 Effective date of a final agency determination.

    (a) A final agency determination under § 15.17 that an individual shall not be deemed to be an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 233 shall be provided to the Department of Health and Human Services and sent by certified or registered mail to the individual and to the entity employing such individual if the individual is currently an officer, employee, or contractor of an entity described in 42 U.S.C. 233(g)(4). In the event the individual is no longer an officer, employee, or contractor of such an entity, the determination shall be sent by certified or registered mail to the individual and to the last entity described in 42 U.S.C. 233(g)(4) at which such individual was an officer, employee, or contractor.

    (b) A final agency determination shall be effective upon the date the written determination is received by such entity.

    (c) An adverse final agency determination shall apply to all acts or omissions of the individual occurring after the date the adverse final determination is received by such entity.

    (d) The Attorney General will inform the National Practitioner Data Bank of any final agency determination under § 15.17 that an individual shall not be deemed to be an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 233.

    § 15.20 Reinstatement.

    (a) No less than five years after the time for rehearing has expired, and no more often than every five years, an individual who has been the subject of a final agency determination under § 15.17 may petition the Attorney General for reconsideration of that determination and reinstatement. The individual bears the burden of proof and persuasion.

    (b) In support of the petition for reinstatement, the individual shall submit relevant evidence relating to the period since the original proceedings under this subpart and a statement demonstrating that treating the individual as an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 233(g) would no longer expose the United States to an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss.

    (c) Upon receiving a petition for reinstatement, the initiating official shall determine, in the initiating official's unreviewable discretion, whether the petition makes a prima facie case that no longer would expose the United States to an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss. The initiating official's determination that a petition does not make a prima facie case is not subject to further review.

    (d) Upon a prima facie case having been made, an administrative law judge shall be appointed in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 3105 and shall conduct such proceedings pursuant to §§ 15.13 through 15.16 as the administrative law judge deems necessary, in his or her sole discretion, to determine whether the individual has established that treating the individual as an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 233(g) would no longer expose the United States to an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss, and shall submit written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended decision to the adjudicating official pursuant to § 15.16.

    (e) On a petition for reinstatement, the adjudicating official shall make the final agency determination, on the basis of the record, findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented by the administrative law judge, which shall include the record from the original determination and any petition for rehearing. All determinations made by the adjudicating official under this rule shall constitute final agency actions.

    (f) A determination that an individual is reinstated pursuant to this section shall be distributed in the same manner as provided in § 15.19.

    Dated: February 25, 2015. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05027 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-12-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0528; FRL-9924-04-Region 7] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Kansas; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Kansas addressing the applicable requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110 for the 2010 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), which requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP to support implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each new or revised NAAQS promulgated by EPA. These SIPs are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIPs. The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0528, by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Mail: Ms. Lachala Kemp, Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, Air and Waste Management Division, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.

    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Ms. Lachala Kemp, Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, Air and Waste Management Division, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0528. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or email information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The http://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 http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, 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 should be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Lachala Kemp, Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-7214; fax number: (913) 551-7065; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    I. What is a section 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure SIP? II. What are the applicable elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP submissions? IV. What is EPA's evaluation of how the state addressed the relevant elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? V. What action is EPA proposing? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review I. What is a section 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure SIP?

    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires, in part, that states make a SIP submission to EPA to implement, maintain and enforce each of the NAAQS promulgated by EPA after reasonable notice and public hearings. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that such infrastructure SIP submissions must address. SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by states within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. These SIP submissions are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIPs.

    II. What are the applicable elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    On June 22, 2010, EPA revised the current 24-hour and annual standards with a new short-term standard based on the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the yearly distribution of1-hour daily maximum SO2 concentrations. The level of the revised SO2 standard (hereafter the 2010 SO2 NAAQS) was set at 75 parts per billion (ppb) (75 FR 35519).

    For the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, states typically have met many of the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous NAAQS. Nevertheless, pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must review and revise, as appropriate, their existing SIPs to ensure that the SIPs are adequate to address the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. To assist states in meeting this statutory requirement, EPA issued guidance on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance), addressing the infrastructure SIP elements required under section 110 (a)(1) and (2) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.1 EPA will address these elements below under the following headings: (A) Emission limits and other control measures; (B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system; (C) Program for enforcement of control measures (prevention of significant deterioration)(PSD)), New Source Review for nonattainment areas, and construction and modification of all stationary sources); (D) Interstate and international transport; (E) Adequate authority, resources, implementation, and oversight; (F) Stationary source monitoring system; (G) Emergency authority; (H) Future SIP revisions; (I) Nonattainment areas; (J) Consultation with government officials, public notification, prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), and visibility protection; (K) Air quality and modeling/data; (L) Permitting fees; and (M) Consultation/participation by affected local entities.

    1 Stephen D. Page, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” Memorandum to EPA Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, September 13, 2013.

    III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP submissions?

    EPA is acting upon the July 15, 2013, SIP submission from Kansas that addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address.

    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, “regional haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.

    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.2 EPA therefore believes that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular, EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submission.

    2 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are triggered in the event of such emergencies.

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that “each” SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein. EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.3 However, section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and part D, addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b) requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two years, or in some cases three years, for such designations to be promulgated.4 This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.

    3 See, e.g., “Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,” 70 FR 25162, at 25163—65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).

    4 EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of the new or revised NAAQS.

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit “a plan” to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.5 Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.6

    5 See, e.g., “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,” 78 FR 4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule), and “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,” (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS).

    6 On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14, 2007 submittal.

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants, therefore the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.7

    7 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D have to meet the “applicable requirements” of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.

    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that particular NAAQS.

    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.8 EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).9 EPA developed the 2013 Guidance document to provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised NAAQS. Within the 2013 guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure SIP submissions.10 The guidance also discusses the substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.

    8 EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist states, as appropriate.

    9 “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.

    10 EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the DC Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of the uncertainty created by this litigation (which culminated in the Supreme Court's recent decision, 134 S. Ct. 1584), EPA elected not to provide additional guidance on the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's SIP appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency). However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements of section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section 128.

    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and New Source Review (NSR) pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure SIP action.

    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state has an EPA-approved minor NSR program and whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.

    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (“SSM”); (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if it is aware of such existing provisions.11 It is important to note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three specific issues just described.

    11 By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.

    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

    With respect to element[s] C and J, EPA interprets the CAA to require each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new or revised NAAQS that demonstrates that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. The requirements of element D(i)(II) may also be satisfied by demonstrating the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program correctly addressing all regulated NSR pollutants. Kansas has shown that it currently has a PSD program in place that covers all regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs).

    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). In order to act consistently with its understanding of the Court's decision pending further judicial action to effectuate the decision, the EPA is not continuing to apply EPA regulations that would require that SIPs include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the requirement that a state's SIP-approved PSD program require that sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase from a modification (e.g. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a need to revise Federal PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA anticipates that many states will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The timing and content of subsequent EPA actions with respect to the EPA regulations and state PSD program approvals are expected to be informed by additional legal process before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not expecting states to have revised their PSD programs for purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions and is only evaluating such submissions to assure that the state's program correctly addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.

    At present, EPA has determined the Kansas' SIP is sufficient to satisfy elements C, D(i)(II), and J with respect to GHGs because the PSD permitting program previously approved by EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. Although the approved Kansas PSD permitting program may currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, this does not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy elements C, (D)(i)(II), and J. The SIP contains the necessary PSD requirements at this time, and the application of those requirements is not impeded by the presence of other previously-approved provisions regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that EPA does not consider necessary at this time in light of the Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision does not affect EPA's proposed approval of Kansas' infrastructure SIP as to the requirements of elements C, D(i)(II), and J.

    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP call” whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.12 Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as past approvals of SIP submissions.13 Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.14

    12 For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of excess emissions during SSM events. See “Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State Implementation Plan Revisions,” 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).

    13 EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See “Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,” 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).

    14 See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).

    IV. What is EPA's evaluation of how the State addressed the relevant elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    EPA Region 7 received Kansas' infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO2 standard on July 15, 2013. The SIP submission became complete as a matter of law on January 15, 2014. EPA has reviewed Kansas' infrastructure SIP submission and the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in those submissions or referenced in Kansas' SIP. Below is EPA's evaluation of how the state addressed the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    (A) Emission limits and other control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for compliance, and other related matters as needed to implement, maintain and enforce each NAAQS.15

    15 The specific nonattainment area plan requirements of section 110(a)(2)(I) are subject to the timing requirements of section 172, not the timing requirement of section 110(a)(1). Thus, section 110(a)(2)(A) does not require that states submit regulations or emissions limits specifically for attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Those SIP provisions are due as part of each state's attainment plan, and will be addressed separately from the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A). In the context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not evaluating the existing SIP provisions for this purpose. Instead, EPA is only evaluating whether the state's SIP has basic structural provisions for the implementation of the NAAQS.

    The State of Kansas' statutes and regulations authorize the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) to regulate air quality and implement air quality control regulations. KDHE's statutory authority can be found in chapter 65, article 30 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated (KSA), otherwise known as the Kansas Air Quality Act. KSA section 65-3003 places the responsibility for air quality conservation and control of air pollution with the Secretary of Health and Environment (“Secretary”). The Secretary in turn administers the Kansas Air Quality Act through the Division of Environment within KDHE. Air pollution is defined in KSA section 65-3002(c) as the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of one or more air contaminants in such quantities and duration as is, or tends significantly to be, injurious to human health or welfare, animal or plant life, or property, or would unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property, or would contribute to the formation of regional haze.

    KSA section 65-3005(a)(1) provides authority to the Secretary to adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations implementing the Kansas Air Quality Act. It also gives the Secretary the authority to establish ambient air quality standards for the State of Kansas as a whole or for any part thereof. KSA section 65-3005(a)(12). The Secretary has the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to ensure that Kansas is in compliance with the provisions of the Act, in furtherance of a policy to implement laws and regulations consistent with those of the Federal government. KSA section 65-3005(b). The Secretary also has the authority to establish emission control requirements as appropriate to facilitate the accomplishment of the purposes of the Kansas Air Quality Act. KSA section 65-3010(a).

    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that the Kansas SIP adequately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the July 15, 2013, SIP submission.

    (B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors, collection and analysis of ambient air quality data, and making these data available to EPA upon request.

    To address this element, KSA section 65-3007 provides the enabling authority necessary for Kansas to fulfill the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B). This provision gives the Secretary the authority to classify air contaminant sources which, in his or her judgment, may cause or contribute to air pollution. Furthermore, the Secretary has the authority to require such air contaminant sources to monitor emissions, operating parameters, ambient impacts of any source emissions, and any other parameters deemed necessary. The Secretary can also require these sources to keep records and make reports consistent with the Kansas Air Quality Act. KSA section 65-3007(b).

    Kansas has an air quality monitoring network operated by KDHE and local air quality agencies that collects air quality data that are compiled, analyzed, and reported to EPA. KDHE's Web site contains up-to-date information about air quality monitoring, including a description of the network and information about the monitoring of SO2. See, generally, http://www.kdheks.gov/bar/air-monitor/indexMon.html. KDHE also conducts five-year monitoring network assessments, including the SO2 monitoring network, as required by 40 CFR 58.10(d). On December 3, 2013, EPA approved Kansas' 2013-2014 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan. This plan includes, among other things, the location for the SO2 monitoring network in Kansas. Specifically, KDHE operates four sulfur dioxide monitors in the state in accordance with the source-oriented sulfur dioxide monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, paragraph 4.4.1(a). Data gathered by the monitors is submitted to EPA's Air Quality System, which in turn determines if the network site monitors are in compliance with the NAAQS.

    Within KDHE, the Bureau of Air implements these requirements. Along with its other duties, the Monitoring and Planning Section collects air monitoring data, quality assures the results, and reports the data. The data is then used to develop the appropriate regulatory or outreach strategies to reduce air pollution.

    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that the Kansas SIP adequately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the July 15, 2013, SIP submission.

    (C) Program for enforcement of control measures (PSD, New Source Review for nonattainment areas, and construction and modification of all stationary sources): Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to include the following three elements in the SIP: (1) A program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures described in section 110(a)(2)(A); (2) a program for the regulation of the modification and construction of stationary sources as necessary to protect the applicable NAAQS (i.e., state-wide permitting of minor sources); and (3) a permit program to meet the major source permitting requirements of the CAA (for areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable for the NAAQS in question).16

    16 As discussed in further detail below, this infrastructure SIP rulemaking will not address the Kansas program for nonattainment area related provisions, since EPA considers evaluation of these provisions to be outside the scope of infrastructure SIP actions.

    (1) Enforcement of SIP Measures. With respect to enforcement of requirements of the SIP, KSA section 65-3005(a)(3) gives the Secretary the authority to issue orders, permits and approvals as may be necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Kansas Air Quality Act and enforce the Act by all appropriate administrative and judicial proceedings. Pursuant to KSA section 65-3006, the Secretary also has the authority to enforce rules, regulations and standards to implement the Kansas Air Quality Act and to employ the professional, technical and other staff to effectuate the provisions of the Act. In addition, if the Secretary or the director of the Division of Environment finds that any person has violated any provision of any approval, permit or compliance plan or any provision of the Kansas Air Quality Act or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, he or she may issue an order directing the person to take such action as necessary to correct the violation. KSA section 65-3011.

    KSA section 65-3018 gives the Secretary or the Director of the Division of Environment the authority to impose a monetary penalty against any person who, among other things, either violates any order or permit issued under the Kansas Air Quality Act, or violates any provision of the Act or rule or regulation promulgated thereunder. Section 65-3028 provides for criminal penalties for knowing violations.

    (2) Minor New Source Review. Section 110(a)(2)(C) also requires that the SIP include measures to regulate construction and modification of stationary sources to protect the NAAQS. With respect to smaller sources that meet the criteria listed in KAR 28-19-300(b) “Construction Permits and Approvals,” Kansas has a SIP-approved permitting program. Any person proposing to conduct a construction or modification at such a source must obtain approval from KDHE prior to commencing construction or modification. If KDHE determines that air contaminant emissions from a source will interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, it cannot issue an approval to construct or modify that source (KAR 28-19-301(d) “Construction Permits and Approvals; Application and Issuance”).

    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Kansas' infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 standard with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that regulates the modification and construction of any stationary source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved. In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove the state's existing minor NSR program to the extent that it is inconsistent with EPA's regulations governing this program. EPA has maintained that the CAA does not require that new infrastructure SIP submissions correct any defects in existing EPA-approved provisions of minor NSR programs in order for EPA to approve the infrastructure SIP for element (C) (e.g., 76 FR 41076-76 FR 41079).

    (3) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program. Kansas also has a program approved by EPA as meeting the requirements of part C, relating to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality. In order to demonstrate that Kansas has met this sub-element, this PSD program must cover requirements not just for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, but for all other regulated NSR pollutants as well.

    In a previous action on June 20, 2013, EPA determined that Kansas has a program in place that meets all the PSD requirements related to all required pollutants (78 FR 37126).17 Therefore, Kansas has adopted all necessary provisions to ensure that its PSD program covers the requirements for the SO2 NAAQS and all other regulated NSR pollutants.

    17 For a detailed discussion on EPA's analysis of how Kansas meets the PSD requirements, see EPA's April 17, 2013, proposed approval of Kansas' 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP (78 FR 22827).

    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that the Kansas SIP adequately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the July 15, 2013, SIP submission.

    (D) Interstate and international transport: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four requirements referred to as prongs 1 through 4. Prongs 1 and 2 are provided at section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); Prongs 3 and 4 are provided at section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance, of any NAAQS in another state. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to include adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required of any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility.

    In this notice, we are not proposing to take any actions related to the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2. At this time, there is no SIP submission from Kansas relating to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS pending before the Agency.

    With respect to the PSD requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3, EPA notes that Kansas' satisfaction of the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD requirements for attainment/unclassifiable areas of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS have been detailed in the section addressing section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA also notes that the proposed action in that section related to PSD is consistent with the proposed approval related to PSD for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4, states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2013 Guidance states that these requirements can be satisfied by an approved SIP addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment, if required, and an approved SIP addressing regional haze.

    Kansas meets this requirement through EPA's final approval of Kansas' regional haze plan on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80754). In this final approval, EPA determined that the Kansas SIP met requirements of the CAA, for states to prevent any future and remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants located over a wide geographic area. Therefore, EPA is proposing to fully approve this aspect of the submission.

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) also requires that the SIP insure compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 and 115 of the CAA, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement, respectively.

    Section 126(a) of the CAA requires new or modified sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from sources within the state. The Kansas regulations address abatement of the effects of interstate pollution. For example, KAR 28-19-350(k)(2) “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality” requires KDHE, prior to issuing any construction permit for a proposed new major source or major modification, to notify EPA, as well as: Any state or local air pollution control agency having jurisdiction in the air quality control region in which the new or modified installation will be located; the chief executives of the city and county where the source will be located; any comprehensive regional land use planning agency having jurisdiction where the source will be located; and any state, Federal land manager, or Indian governing body whose lands will be affected by emissions from the new source or modification.18 See also KAR 28-19-204 “General Provisions; Permit Issuance and Modification; Public Participation” for additional public participation requirements. In addition, no Kansas source or sources have been identified by EPA as having any interstate impacts under section 126 in any pending actions relating to any air pollutant.

    18 KAR 28-19-16k(b) provides similar requirements for construction permits issued in nonattainment areas.

    Section 115 of the CAA authorizes EPA to require a state to revise its SIP under certain conditions to alleviate international transport into another country. There are no final findings under section 115 of the CAA against Kansas with respect to any air pollutant. Thus, the state's SIP does not need to include any provisions to meet the requirements of section 115.

    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that Kansas has the adequate infrastructure needed to address sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Prongs 3 and 4 and 110 (a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the July 15, 2013, submission.

    (E) Adequate authority, resources, implementation, and oversight: Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that SIPs provide for the following: (1) Necessary assurances that the state (and other entities within the state responsible for implementing the SIP) will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state or local law to implement the SIP, and that there are no legal impediments to such implementation; (2) requirements that the state comply with the requirements relating to state boards, pursuant to section 128 of the CAA; and (3) necessary assurances that the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of any plan provision for which it relies on local governments or other entities to carry out that portion of the plan.

    (1) Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires states to establish that they have adequate personnel, funding and authority. With respect to adequate authority, we have previously discussed Kansas' statutory and regulatory authority to implement the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, primarily in the discussion of section 110(a)(2)(A) above. Neither Kansas nor EPA has identified any legal impediments in the state's SIP to implementation of the NAAQS.

    With respect to adequate resources, KDHE asserts that it has adequate personnel to implement the SIP. The Kansas statutes provide the Secretary the authority to employ technical, professional and other staff to effectuate the purposes of the Kansas Air Quality Act from funds appropriated and available for these purposes. See KSA section 65-3006(b). Within KDHE, the Bureau of Air implements the Kansas Air Quality Act. This Bureau is further divided into the Air Compliance and Enforcement Section, Air Permit Section; the Monitoring and Planning Section; and the Radiation and Asbestos Control Section.

    With respect to funding, the Kansas Legislature annually approves funding and personnel resources for KDHE to implement the air program. The annual budget process provides a periodic update that enables KDHE and the local agencies to adjust funding and personnel needs. In addition, the Kansas statutes grant the Secretary authority to establish various fees for sources, to cover any and all parts of administering the provisions of the Kansas Air Quality Act. For example, KSA section 65-3008(f) grants the Secretary authority to fix, charge, and collect fees for construction approvals and permits (and the renewals thereof). KSA section 65-3024 grants the Secretary the authority to establish annual emissions fees. These emission fees, along with any moneys recovered by the state under the provisions of the Kansas Air Quality Act, are deposited into an air quality fee fund in the state treasury. Moneys in the air quality fee fund can only be used for the purpose of administering the Kansas Air Quality Act.

    Kansas also uses funds in the non-Title V subaccounts, along with General Revenue funds and EPA grants under, for example, sections 103 and 105 of the Act, to fund the programs. EPA conducts periodic program reviews to ensure that the state has adequate resources and funding to, among other things, implement the SIP.

    (2) Conflict of interest provisions—section 128. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that each state SIP meet the requirements of section 128, relating to representation on state boards and conflicts of interest by members of such boards. Section 128(a)(1) requires that any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA must have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any “significant portion” of their income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under the CAA. Section 128(a)(2) requires that members of such a board or body, or the head of an agency with similar powers, adequately disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

    On June 20, 2013, EPA approved Kansas' SIP revision addressing the section 128 requirements (78 FR 37126). For a detailed discussion on EPA's analysis of how Kansas meets the section 128 requirements, see EPA's April 17, 2013, proposed approval of Kansas' 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP (78 FR 22827).

    (3) With respect to assurances that the state has responsibility to implement the SIP adequately when it authorizes local or other agencies to carry out portions of the plan, KSA section 65-3005(a)(8) grants the Secretary authority to encourage local units of government to handle air pollution problems within their own jurisdictions and to provide technical and consultative assistance therefor. The Secretary may also enter into agreements with local units of government to administer all or part of the provisions of the Kansas Air Quality Act in the units' respective jurisdictions. In fact, KSA section 65-3016 allows for cities and/or counties (or combinations thereof) to form local air quality conservation authorities. These authorities will then have the authority to enforce air quality rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary and adopt any additional rules, regulations and standards as needed to maintain satisfactory air quality within their jurisdictions.

    At the same time, the Kansas statutes also retain authority in the Secretary to carry out the provisions of the state air pollution control law. KSA section 65-3003 specifically places responsibility for air quality conservation and control of air pollution with the Secretary. The Secretary shall then administer the Kansas Air Quality Act through the Division of Environment. As an example of this retention of authority, KSA section 65-3016 only allows for the formation of local air quality conservation authorities with the approval of the Secretary. In addition, although these authorities can adopt additional air quality rules, regulations and standards, they may only do so if those rules, regulations and standards are in compliance with those set by the Secretary for that area. Currently, KDHE oversees the following local agencies that implement that Kansas Air Quality Act: The City of Wichita Office of Environmental Health, Johnson County Department of Health and Environment, and Unified Government of Wyandotte County-Kansas City, Kansas Public Health Department.

    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that Kansas has the adequate infrastructure needed to address section 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the July 15, 2013, submission.

    (F) Stationary source monitoring system: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires states to establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary sources and to submit periodic emission reports. Each SIP shall require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources, to monitor emissions from such sources. The SIP shall also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and requires that the state correlate the source reports with emission limitations or standards established under the CAA. These reports must be made available for public inspection at reasonable times.

    To address this element, KSA section 65-3007 gives the Secretary the authority to classify air contaminant sources which, in his or her judgment, may cause or contribute to air pollution. The Secretary shall require air contaminant emission sources to monitor emissions, operating parameters, ambient impact of any source emissions, and any other parameters deemed necessary. Furthermore, the Secretary may require these emissions sources to keep records and make reports consistent with the purposes of the Kansas Air Quality Act.

    In addition, KAR 28-19-12(A) “Measurement of Emissions” states that KDHE may require any person responsible for the operation of an emissions source to make or have tests made to determine the rate of contaminant emissions from the source whenever it has reason to believe that existing emissions exceed limitations specified in the Kansas air quality regulations. At the same time, KDHE may also conduct its own tests of emissions from any source. KAR 28-19-12(B). The Kansas regulations also require that all Class I operating permits include requirements for monitoring of emissions (KAR 28-19-512(a)(9) “Class I Operating Permits; Permit Content”).

    Kansas makes all monitoring reports (as well as compliance plans and compliance certifications) submitted as part of a construction permit or Class I or Class II permit application publicly available. See KSA section 65-3015(a); KAR 28-19-204(c)(6) “General Provisions; Permit Issuance and Modification; Public Participation.” KDHE uses this information to track progress towards maintaining the NAAQS, developing control and maintenance strategies, identifying sources and general emission levels, and determining compliance with emission regulations and additional EPA requirements. Although the Kansas statutes allow a person to request that records or information reported to KDHE be regarded and treated as confidential on the grounds that it constitutes trade secrets, emission data is specifically excluded from this protection. See KSA section 65-3015(b).

    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that Kansas has the adequate infrastructure needed to address section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the July 15, 2013, submission.

    (G) Emergency authority: Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires SIPs to provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare or the environment (comparable to the authorities provided in section 303 of the CAA), and to include contingency plans to implement such authorities as necessary.

    KSA section 65-3012(a) states that whenever the Secretary receives evidence that emissions from an air pollution source or combination of sources presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare or to the environment, he or she may issue a temporary order directing the owner or operator, or both, to take such steps as necessary to prevent the act or eliminate the practice. Upon issuance of this temporary order, the Secretary may then commence an action in the district court to enjoin these acts or practices.

    KAR 28-19-56 “Episode Criteria” allows the Secretary to proclaim an air pollution alert, air pollution warning, or air pollution emergency whenever he or she determines that the accumulation of air contaminants at any sampling location has attained levels which could, if such levels are sustained or exceeded, threaten the public health. KAR 28-19-57 “Emission Reduction Requirements” imposes restrictions on emission sources in the event one of these three air pollution episode statuses is declared.

    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in those submissions or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that the Kansas SIP adequately addresses section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the July 15, 2013, submission.

    (H) Future SIP revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires states to have the authority to revise their SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved methods for attaining the NAAQS, or in response to an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS.

    KSA section 65-3005(b) specifically states that it is the policy of the state of Kansas to regulate the air quality of the state and implement laws and regulations that are applied equally and uniformly throughout the state and consistent with that of the Federal government. Therefore, the Secretary has the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to ensure that Kansas is in compliance with the provisions of the Federal CAA. KSA 65-3005(b)(1).

    As discussed previously, KSA section 65-3005(a)(1) provides authority to the Secretary to adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations implementing and consistent with the Kansas Air Quality Act. The Secretary also has the authority to establish ambient air quality standards for the state of Kansas or any part thereof. KSA section 65-3005(a)(12). Therefore, as a whole, the Secretary has the authority to revise rules as necessary to respond to any necessary changes in the NAAQS.

    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that Kansas has adequate authority to address section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the July 15, 2013, submission.

    (I) Nonattainment areas: Section 110(a)(2)(I) requires that in the case of a plan or plan revision for areas designated as nonattainment areas, states must meet applicable requirements of part D of the CAA, relating to SIP requirements for designated nonattainment areas.

    As noted earlier, EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP submissions to address subsection (I). The specific SIP submissions for designated nonattainment areas, as required under CAA title I, part D, are subject to different submission schedules than those for section 110 infrastructure elements. Instead, EPA will take action on part D attainment plan SIP submissions through a separate rulemaking governed by the requirements for nonattainment areas, as described in part D.

    (J) Consultation with government officials, public notification, PSD and visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires SIPs to meet the applicable requirements of the following CAA provisions: (1) Section 121, relating to interagency consultation regarding certain CAA requirements; (2) section 127, relating to public notification of NAAQS exceedances and related issues; and (3) part C of the CAA, relating to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection.

    (1) With respect to interagency consultation, the SIP should provide a process for consultation with general-purpose local governments, designated organizations of elected officials of local governments, and any Federal Land Manager having authority over Federal land to which the SIP applies. KSA section 65-3005(a)(14) grants the Secretary the authority to advise, consult and cooperate with other agencies of the state, local governments, other states, interstate and interlocal agencies, and the Federal government. Furthermore, as noted earlier in the discussion on section 110(a)(2)(D), Kansas' regulations require that whenever it receives a construction permit application for a new source or a modification, KDHE must notify state and local air pollution control agencies, as well as regional land use planning agencies and any state, Federal land manager, or Indian governing body whose lands will be affected by emissions from the new source or modification. See KAR 28-19-350(k)(2) “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality.”

    (2) With respect to the requirements for public notification in section 127, the infrastructure SIP should provide citations to regulations in the SIP requiring the air agency to regularly notify the public of instances or areas in which any NAAQS are exceeded; advise the public of the health hazard associated with such exceedances; and enhance public awareness of measures that can prevent such exceedances and of ways in which the public can participate in the regulatory and other efforts to improve air quality.

    As discussed previously with element (G), KAR 28-19-56 “Episode Criteria” contains provisions that allow the Secretary to proclaim an air pollution alert, air pollution warning, or air pollution emergency status whenever he or she determines that the accumulation of air contaminants at any sampling location has attained levels which could, if such levels are sustained or exceeded, threaten the public health. Any of these emergency situations can also be declared by the Secretary even in the absence of issuance of a high air pollution potential advisory or equivalent advisory from a local weather bureau meteorologist, if deemed necessary to protect the public health. In the event of such an emergency situation, public notification will occur through local weather bureaus.

    In addition, information regarding air pollution and related issues is provided on a KDHE Web site, http://www.kdheks.gov/bar/. This information includes air quality data, information regarding the NAAQS, health effects of poor air quality, and links to the Kansas Air Quality Monitoring Network. KDHE also has an “Outreach and Education” Web page (http://www.kdheks.gov/bar/air_outreach/air_quality_edu.htm) with information on how individuals can take measures to reduce emissions and improve air quality in daily activities.

    (3) With respect to the applicable requirements of part C of the CAA, relating to PSD of air quality and visibility protection, as noted in above under element (C), the Kansas SIP meets the PSD requirements, incorporating the Federal rule by reference. With respect to the visibility component of section 110(a)(2)(J), EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA. However, when EPA establishes or revises a NAAQS, these visibility and regional haze requirements under part C do not change. EPA believes that there are no new visibility protection requirements under part C as a result of a revised NAAQS. Therefore, there are no newly applicable visibility protection obligations pursuant to element J after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.

    Nevertheless, as noted above in section D, EPA has already approved Kansas' Regional Haze Plan and determined that it met the CAA requirements for preventing future and remedying existing impairment of visibility caused by air pollutants.

    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that Kansas has met the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in the state and is therefore proposing to approve this element of the July 15, 2013, submission.

    (K) Air quality and modeling/data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that SIPs provide for performing air quality modeling, as prescribed by EPA, to predict the effects on ambient air quality of any emissions of any NAAQS pollutant, and for submission of such data to EPA upon request.

    Kansas has authority to conduct air quality modeling and report the results of such modeling to EPA. KSA section 65-3005(a)(9) gives the Secretary the authority to encourage and conduct studies, investigations and research relating to air contamination and air pollution and their causes, effects, prevention, abatement and control. As an example of regulatory authority to perform modeling for purposes of determining NAAQS compliance, the regulations at KAR 28-19-350 “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality” incorporate EPA modeling guidance in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W for the purposes of demonstrating compliance or non-compliance with a NAAQS.

    The Kansas statutes and regulations also give KDHE the authority to require that modeling data be submitted for analysis. KSA section 65-3007(b) grants the Secretary the authority to require air contaminant emission sources to monitor emissions, operating parameters, ambient impact of any source emissions or any other parameters deemed necessary. The Secretary may also require these sources to keep records and make reports consistent with the purposes of the Kansas Air Quality Act. These reports could include information as may be required by the Secretary concerning the location, size, and height of contaminant outlets, processes employed, fuels used, and the nature and time periods or duration of emissions, and such information as is relevant to air pollution and available or reasonably capable of being assembled. KSA section 65-3007(c).

    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that Kansas has the adequate infrastructure needed to address section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the July 15, 2013, submission.

    (L) Permitting Fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require each major stationary source to pay permitting fees to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under the CAA, to cover the cost of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit, and, if the permit is issued, the costs of implementing and enforcing the terms of the permit. The fee requirement applies until a fee program established by the state pursuant to Title V of the CAA, relating to operating permits, is approved by EPA.

    KSA section 65-3008(f) allows the Secretary to fix, charge, and collect fees for approvals and permits (and the renewals thereof). KSA section 65-3024 grants the Secretary the authority to establish annual emissions fees. Fees from the construction permits and approvals are deposited into the Kansas state treasury and credited to the state general fund. Emissions fees are deposited into an air quality fee fund in the Kansas state treasury. Moneys in the air quality fee fund can only be used for the purpose of administering the Kansas Air Quality Act.

    Kansas' Title V program, found at KAR 28-19-500 to 28-19-564, was approved by EPA on January 30, 1996 (61 FR 2938). EPA reviews the Kansas Title V program, including Title V fee structure, separately from this proposed action. Because the Title V program and associated fees legally are not part of the SIP, the infrastructure SIP action we are proposing today does not preclude EPA from taking future action regarding Kansas' Title V program.

    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS are met and is proposing to approve this element of the July 15, 2013, submission.

    (M) Consultation/participation by affected local entities: Section 110(a)(2)(M) requires SIPs to provide for consultation and participation by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.

    KSA section 65-3005(a)(8)(A) gives the Secretary the authority to encourage local units of government to handle air pollution problems within their respective jurisdictions and on a cooperative basis and to provide technical and consultative assistance therefor. The Secretary may also enter into agreements with local units of government to administer all or part of the provisions on the Kansas Air Quality Act in the units' respective jurisdiction. The Secretary also has the authority to advise, consult, and cooperate with local governments. KSA section 65-3005(a)(14). He or she may enter into contracts and agreements with local governments as is necessary to accomplish the goals of the Kansas Air Quality Act. KSA section 65-3005(a)(16).

    Currently, KDHE's Bureau of Air has signed state and/or local agreements with the Department of Air Quality from the Unified Government of Wyandotte County—Kansas City, Kansas; the Wichita Office of Environmental Health; the Johnson County Department of Health and Environment; and the Mid-America Regional Council. These agreements establish formal partnerships between the Bureau of Air and these local agencies to work together to develop and annually update strategic goals, objectives and strategies for reducing emissions and improving air quality.

    In addition, as previously noted in the discussion about section 110(a)(2)(J), Kansas' statutes and regulations require that KDHE consult with local political subdivisions for the purposes of carrying out its air pollution control responsibilities.

    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that Kansas has the adequate infrastructure needed to address section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the July 15, 2013, submission.

    V. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve the infrastructure SIP submissions from Kansas which address the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the following infrastructure elements, or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). As discussed in each applicable section of this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part D.

    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submissions and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that Kansas has the infrastructure to address all applicable required elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) (except otherwise noted) to ensure that the 2010 SO2 NAAQS are implemented in the state.

    We are hereby soliciting comment on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the EPA approved Kansas Nonregulatory Provision for Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS described in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

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

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by section 110 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: February 24, 2015. Karl Brooks, Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart R—Kansas 2. In § 52.870(e) the table is amended by adding entry (40) in numerical order to read as follows:
    § 52.870 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Kansas Nonregulatory Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic area or Nonattainment area State submittal date EPA Approval date Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * (40) Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS Statewide 3/19/2013 3/6/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] This action addresses the following CAA elements 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).
    [FR Doc. 2015-05328 Filed 3-5-15; 08:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 15, 90, and 95 [ET Docket Nos. 15-26, 11-90, 10-28, RM-11555, RM-11666, and WT Docket No. 11-202; FCC 15-16] Operation of Radar Systems in the 76-81 GHz Band AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes to authorize radar applications in the 76-81 GHz band. The Commission seeks to develop a flexible and streamlined regulatory framework that will encourage efficient, innovative uses of the spectrum and to allow various services to operate on an interference-protected basis. In doing so, it further seeks to adopt service rules that will allow for the deployment of the various radar applications in this band, both within and outside the U.S. The Commission takes this action in response to a petition for rulemaking filed by Robert Bosch, LLC (Bosch) and two petitions for reconsideration of the 2012 Vehicular Radar R&O.

    DATES:

    Comments must be filed on or before April 6, 2015, and reply comments must be filed on or before April 20, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Aamer Zain, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2437, email: [email protected], TTY (202) 418-2989.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 15-26, by any of the following methods:

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

    Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Reconsideration Order, ET Docket No. 15-26, RM-11555, RM-11666, ET Docket Nos. 11-90, 10-28 and WT Docket No. 11-202; FCC 15-16, adopted February 3, 2015, and released February 5, 2015. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

    U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.

    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

    Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Reconsideration Order (NPRM), the Commission proposes rules that will accommodate the commercial development and use of various radar technologies in the 76-81 GHz band under part 95 of its rules. These proposals include allocation changes to the bands as well as provisions to ensure that new and incumbent operations can share the available frequencies in the band. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the following 76-81 GHz band matters;

    • Expanding radar operations in the 76-81 GHz band;

    • Modifying the Table of Frequency Allocations to provide an allocation for the radiolocation service in the 77.5-78 GHz band;

    • Authorizing the expanded radar operations on a licensed basis under part 95;

    • Shifting vehicular and other users away from the existing part 15 unlicensed operating model; and

    • Evaluating the compatibility of incumbent operations, including that of amateur radio, with radar applications in the 77-81 GHz band.

    Collectively, these actions propose a unified approach for providing allocation and service rules for the various types of radar applications that will operate within the 76-81 GHz range. Background

    2. The 76-77.5 GHz and 78-81 GHz bands are allocated to the Radio Astronomy service (RAS) and the Radiolocation service on a primary basis and to the Amateur and Space research (space-to-Earth) services on a secondary basis. The 77.5-78 GHz band is allocated to the Amateur and Amateur-Satellite services on a primary basis and to the Radio astronomy and Space research (space-to-Earth) services on a secondary basis. Discussed further are primary radiolocation services that are allocated in the 76-77.5 GHz and 78-81 GHz bands.

    3. These bands are in the region of the radiofrequency spectrum known as “millimeter wave” spectrum. At these frequencies, radio propagation decreases more rapidly with distance than at lower frequencies and antennas that can narrowly focus transmitted energy are practical and of modest size. While the limited range of such transmissions might be a disadvantage for many applications, it does allow frequency reuse within very short distances and thereby enables a higher concentration of transmitters in a geographical area than is possible at lower frequencies.

    4. In recent years, the Commission has sought to make frequencies in the 76-81 GHz range available for new and innovative radar applications that can provide important benefits to the public at large. In a series of rulemaking proceedings that date back to 1995, the Commission has established rules to allow the use of this spectrum by automotive collision avoidance radar applications (“vehicular radars”) and radar systems that detect foreign object debris (FOD) at airport facilities (“FOD detection radars”). Vehicular radars are authorized under part 15 of our rules, while FOD detection radars currently are permitted to operate under parts 15 and 90 of the Commission's rules.

    Vehicular Radar

    5. Vehicular radars can determine the exact distance and relative speed of objects in front of, beside, or behind a car to improve the driver's ability to perceive objects under bad visibility conditions or objects in blind spots. In 1995, the Commission adopted rules to allow the use of the 76-77 GHz band by vehicular radars on an unlicensed basis. These provisions were limited to vehicle-mounted radars; fixed applications were not permitted.

    6. On May 24, 2011, Toyota Motor Corporation filed a petition to modify the technical rules for vehicular radars to allow greater flexibility in vehicular radar applications. In response, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Vehicular Radar NPRM) and subsequently issued a Report and Order (Vehicular Radar R&O) modifying the part 15 rules for vehicular radars in the 76-77 GHz band. The Commission, inter alia, modified the rules to specify average and peak radiated emission limits in equivalent EIRP and power density units so that manufacturers could use either specification to express the emissions from their devices.

    7. Vehicular radar technology has continued to evolve, and industry has developed more enhanced and cost-effective long-range vehicular radars (LRR) in the 76-77 GHz band. Developers of these technologies claim that the existing 1 gigahertz bandwidth used by LRR is insufficient to develop high-resolution short-range vehicular radars (SRR) that can implement safety features such as collision warning, lane departure warning, lane change assistance, blind-spot detection, and pedestrian protection. As background, LRRs have narrow beams with bandwidth less than1 gigahertz and typical spatial resolution of 0.5 meters. Their range of operation is up to 150 to 250 meters. SRRs on the other hand have wide beam with bandwidths up to 4 gigahertz and typical spatial resolution of 0.1 meters. Their range of operation is up to 30 meters.

    8. Recently, Bosch filed a petition for rulemaking to modify § 15.253 of the Commission's rules to expand the operation of unlicensed vehicular radar systems from 76-77 GHz to the 76-81 GHz band to develop SRR applications. It claims that the additional 4 gigahertz bandwidth will provide SRR with both frequency separation from LRR and the necessary bandwidth for range accuracy, angular accuracy, and good object discrimination.

    9. On July 17, 2012, the Commission issued a public notice seeking comment on Bosch's petition. The petition drew general support from the automotive industry, opposition from an individual amateur radio operator and interest from two developing non-vehicular radio applications for the band. Specifically, eight parties filed comments and three parties submitted ex parte written communications.

    Millimeter Wave Band Radar Operation at Airports

    10. The Commission has recognized the benefits associated with radars that can detect FOD at airports. Generally speaking, FOD include any substance, debris, or object that can damage aircraft or equipment. FOD can seriously threaten the safety of airport personnel and airline passengers and can have a negative impact on airport logistics and operations. According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), FOD “has the potential to damage aircraft during critical phases of flight, which can lead to catastrophic loss of life and airframe, and at the very least increased maintenance and operating costs.” Moreover, the direct maintenance costs to airlines caused by FOD have been estimated to be one to four billion dollars per year. The Commission provides for both unlicensed FOD detection radar use in the 76-77 GHz band under its part 15 rules and licensed FOD detection radar use in the 78-81 GHz band under its part 90 rules.

    11. Interest in using the millimeter wave bands to support FOD detection radars dates back to February 23, 2009, when Era Systems Corporation (“Era”) requested for waiver of §§ 2.803, 15.201 and 15.253 of the Commission's rules. In response, the Office of Engineering and Technology issued a public notice seeking comments on Era waiver request and later granted Era a limited waiver to allow the installation of radar systems at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.

    12. Also in a separate proceeding, Era filed comments asking the Commission to amend its part 15 rules to permit fixed use of 76-77 GHz radars at airports for monitoring air traffic and airport service vehicles only. The Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) decided to treat ERA's comments as a Petition for Rulemaking, and consolidated Era and Vehicular Radar petitions into single rule making proceeding in the 76-77 GHz band. During the course of this proceeding, Xsight Systems Ltd. (Xsight) filed ex parte comments in support of Era and asked the Commission to allow operation of FOD detection radars in the 76-77 GHz band at airport locations only.

    13. Subsequently, as part of the Vehicular Radar NPRM, the Commission examined the use of fixed radar systems in the 76-77 GHz band and proposed to allow such use at any location, rather than restrict their use to only airport locations per the Era petition for rulemaking. The Commission stated that limiting fixed radar operations to specific locations such as airports might be overly restrictive and could unnecessarily burden the public. In the subsequent Vehicular Radar R&O, the Commission permitted unlicensed operation of fixed radars, including FOD detection radars, in the 76-77 GHz band at airport locations. It permitted such operation on an unlicensed basis under the same part 15 rules and with the same emission limits that it applied to vehicular radars in the band.

    14. Licensed FOD detection radar can be traced to an August 10, 2010, petition for Rulemaking in which Trex Enterprises Corporation (Trex) asked us to amend part 90 of the Commission'sr rules to permit FOD detection radars to operate in the 78-81 GHz band and to impose service rules that require each airport location to be individually licensed to operate FOD detection radars. The Commission subsequently issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order seeking comment on the best way to enable the use FOD detection radars. On July 11, 2013, the Commission adopted a Report and Order that permitted the certification, licensing, and use of FOD detection radars in the 78-81 GHz band under our part 90 rules. In that Report and Order, the Commission did not adopt technical specifications for FOD detection radars, see 78 FR 45072, July 26, 2013. The Commission addresses this issue herein.

    Petitions for Reconsideration

    15. Our evaluation of the 76-81 GHz band also implicates two outstanding petitions for reconsideration. Both petitions were filed in response to the Vehicular Radar R&O that modified our part 15 rules to permit vehicular radar technologies and airport-based fixed radar applications in the 76-77 GHz band.

    16. The first petition concerns the scope of fixed infrastructure applications in the 76-77 GHz band. In the Vehicular Radar R&O, the Commission stated that it continues to believe that vehicular radars should be able to share the band with fixed radars operating at the same levels and noted that there were no conclusive test results indicating that there would be incompatibility issues between the two types of radars. It nevertheless declined to adopt provisions for unlicensed fixed radar operations outside of airport locations in the 76-77 GHz band, stating that no parties had come forward to establish a clear demand for fixed radar applications beyond such locations. Navtech Radar (Navtech) asks that the Commission reconsider this decision. Navtech claims that evidence suggests the band can be more broadly shared between vehicular and fixed radars, and that there is demand for new fixed radar applications that are not permitted under the current rules. Numerous parties, including representatives of the automotive industry, oppose the Navtech petition on both substantive and procedural grounds. In a subsequent ex parte presentation, Navtech reiterated its claims.

    17. Second, Honeywell International, Inc. (Honeywell) asks that the Commission clarify that § 15.253(a) of its rules does not prohibit the operation of 76-77 GHz band radar devices located on aircraft while the aircraft are on the ground. Honeywell envisions that its radar application will help aircraft avoid collisions with other aircraft, stationary objects, and service vehicles.

    18. Numerous representatives of the automotive industry as well as Xsight Systems, Inc., filed to oppose the Honeywell petition. These parties raised procedural arguments—that the issue of removing the current prohibition on the use of 76-77 GHz frequency range on aircraft or satellite was not properly raised in the proceeding and is otherwise outside the scope of the decision—as well as claims that there is insufficient evidence that both aircraft-mounted and vehicular radars can co-exist in the 76-77 GHz band. In response, Honeywell claims that the issues it raises are within the scope of the Commission's rulemaking proceeding, that there is no technical reason why aircraft-mounted radar cannot operate in the 76-77 GHz band while the aircraft is on ground, and that there is an urgent and recognized public interest need for the anti-collision benefits its aircraft-mounted radars can provide.

    19. The Commission originally adopted rules to allow use of the 76-77 GHz band, limited to vehicle-mounted radars. It recognized concerns raised by the Committee on Radio Frequencies (CORF) of the National Academies about potential interference to radio astronomy operations, and prohibited the use of 76-77 GHz unlicensed devices aboard aircraft and satellites as a way to protect the radio astronomy services. Any change to the restriction on the use of 76-77 GHz unlicensed devices aboard aircraft and satellites was neither part of the Vehicular Radar NPRM nor of the subsequent Vehicular Radar R&O.

    Radio Astronomy Service

    20. The radio astronomy service is a passive service that receives radio waves of cosmic origin to better understand our universe. Astronomical research above 50 GHz is particularly well suited for studies of star formation, the properties of the interstellar medium, the chemical evolution of the Universe, detection of extra-solar planets and many other phenomena. RAS has a mix of primary and secondary allocations that span the 76-81 GHz band. RAS installations are remotely located to provide interference protection from active services. The Commission previously concluded that there is very negligible risk of potential interference to RAS equipment from vehicular radars in the 76-77 GHz band. The Commission also concluded that unlicensed FOD detection equipment would not cause harmful interference to RAS equipment as both applications only operate fixed stations, are limited in number and are not located in close proximity.

    Amateur

    21. In addition to the above services, the Commission also allows amateur radio use within the 76-81 GHz band. Generally speaking, amateur operators use radio spectrum for private recreation, non-commercial exchange of messages, wireless experimentation, self-training, and emergency communication purposes. The amateur radio community previously stated that the frequencies in the 76-81 GHz range (which it identifies as the “4 mm band”) are well suited for experiments relating to short-range high-speed data communication. The Commission has previously considered compatibility issues for amateur operations with vehicular radar and FOD detection radar operations. In light of concerns about interference between amateur operations and vehicular radars, the Commission imposed (and, more recently, maintained) a suspension of the amateur-satellite service allocation in the 76-77 GHz band.

    Level Probing Radar

    22. An additional permitted operation in the 77-81 GHz band is that of level probing radars (LPRs) which operate on an unlicensed basis under part 15. LPRs are used to measure the amount of various materials contained in storage tanks or vessels or to measure water or other material levels in outdoor locations. They are typically mounted inside storage tanks or on bridges or on other elevated structures in outdoor locations, and emit radio frequency (RF) signals through an antenna aimed downwards to the surface of the substance to be measured. The Commission recently concluded that LPR devices would be able to co-exist successfully with vehicular radars. It based its conclusion on the nature of LPR equipment, which is installed in a downward-looking position at fixed locations, and because the main-beam emission limits have been carefully calculated to avoid harmful interference to other radio services.

    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    23. The Commission undertakes this proceeding to expand the available spectrum for radar operations in the 76-81 GHz band. Specifically, it proposes to add rules for radars in the 76-81 GHz band as licensed services under part 95 of our rules. In doing so, the Commission recognizes that the millimeter wave bands support numerous beneficial services and incumbent operations, including vehicular radars, radio astronomy, FOD detection radars, level probing radars and amateur applications, and that this frequency band could host other additional applications in the future. The following discussion addresses the compatibility issues among services and proposes rules to authorize vehicular radars, FOD detection radars, fixed infrastructure radars and aircraft-mounted radars in the 76-81 GHz band. As with other spectrum users, the Commission seeks to promote the efficient use of these resources by radar applications.

    Vehicular Radar

    24. The Commission recognizes that the usage of vehicular radar applications has continued to grow and evolve since the Commission issued the Vehicular Radar R&O, and that providing expanded access to the 76-81 GHz band could help those applications deliver important public benefits. Therefore, the Commission has set forth, a compressive approach for authorizing vehicular radars in the 76-81 GHz band while maintaining a view to ensuring an efficient use of spectrum by radar applications.

    25. The Commission's proposals are informed in large part by the Bosch petition, which was filed on behalf of the “79 GHz Project”—an industry-backed group that seeks to make the 77-81 GHz frequency range available for short-range automotive radar systems on a worldwide basis. In its petition, Bosch describes the development of short-range radar (SRR) applications that are used for both active and passive automotive safety applications. According to Bosch, SRR active safety applications include “stop and follow,” “stop and go,” autonomous braking, firing of restraint systems and pedestrian protection. Passive safety applications include obstacle and pedestrian avoidance, collision warning, lane departure warning, lane change aids, blind spot detection, parking aids and airbag arming. Collectively, collision-warning systems, vehicle environmental sensing systems, and other SRR applications are referred to as a “safety belt” for vehicles. As a practical matter, these applications offer new and tangible ways to enhance the safety of the Nation's drivers, and to meet important automotive safety objectives.

    26. The Commission proposes to make additional spectrum available for vehicular radars to accommodate the new SRR applications. As an initial matter, Bosch contends that sharing studies conducted by the automotive industry have concluded that sharing is not achievable between the LRR systems that are currently deployed in the 76-77 GHz band and new high-resolution SRR applications, due to foreseeable saturating interference from LRRs into SRRs (but not vice-versa). Bosch claims that in such a co-channel environment, the SRRs would be jammed due to the lack of frequency separation. Bosch further notes that the 76-77 GHz band has already been designated for vehicular and infrastructure radar systems in the United States pursuant to § 15.253, and in Europe pursuant to ECC Decision ECC/DEC/(02)01 on Road Transport and Traffic Telematic (RTTT) systems, and is used for such LRR applications as Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems, with a maximum bandwidth of 1 gigahertz. For these reasons, it asserts that a common band between the two systems is not feasible, and that the Commission should identify alternate spectrum for SRR use.

    27. Bosch identifies a 4 gigahertz-wide band in the 77-81 GHz range for SRR applications. Other automotive interests support Bosch's request. They argue that the existing LRR systems must be supplemented by a wider bandwidth segment of up to 4 gigahertz for SRRs to perform effectively. They contend that greater bandwidth leads to better range separation and object discrimination that enables SRRs to implement functions such as pedestrian/automotive collision avoidance, side impact warning, and roadwork avoidance. Trex, however, urges the Commission to examine closely the need for 4 GHz of bandwidth for automotive radars in the context of ensuing efficient and flexible use of our spectrum resources, and asks that in addressing Bosch's request, the Commission also ensure that any rules that it adopts do not unreasonably restrict additional, valuable uses of the band. The Commission seeks comment on how the FCC can accommodate SRR applications while ensuring efficient and flexible use of spectrum by radar applications.

    28. The Commission finds merit in Bosch's request, and proposes to grant SRR applications access to additional spectrum apart and distinct from the spectrum currently used for LRR. In particular, the Commission proposes to provide up to 4 gigahertz of bandwidth for SRRs so that these radars can gather information about objects with a sufficient resolution. Moreover, the extensive catalogue of enhanced features supported by SRR and the expectation that their deployment will become more widespread suggests that the public interest would be served by providing SRR with expanded access to the 77-81 GHz band. Given that the LRR applications use a narrower bandwidth than that used by SRR applications, the SRR applications will have a lower transmit power density level than that for LRR applications and therefore will have low likelihood for causing any potential interference. The Commission seek comment on these observations.

    29. The Commission also believes that the spectrum identified by Bosch—the 77-81 GHz band—is a good fit for vehicular radar. At these millimeter wave frequencies, radio propagation losses increase more rapidly with distance than at lower frequencies and antennas that can narrowly focus transmitted energy are practical and of modest size. While the limited range of such transmissions might appear to be a major disadvantage for many applications, it does allow the reuse of frequencies within very short distances and, thereby enables a higher concentration of transmitters to be located in a geographic area than is possible at lower frequencies. This characteristic makes the band especially desirable as vehicular radars become more common throughout the transportation ecosystem. Moreover, these frequencies are adjacent to the 76-77 GHz band, which has already proven to be well suited for LRR applications. Because manufacturers can adapt equipment already designed to operate in the 76-77 GHz band, they will enjoy the benefits of expanded radar use at a lower cost than if they had to design equipment for a different non-adjacent band.

    30. As Bosch notes in its petition, permitting vehicular radars throughout the 76-81 GHz band can also support industry efforts to consolidate vehicular radar into an internationally harmonized frequency band. Materials prepared by the 79 GHz project indicate that the 77-81 GHz band is already available for SRR applications in many parts of the world, including Europe, Australia, Russia, and Chile, and is in progress in many others. Bosch and Continental further note that the 2015 World Radio Communication Conference is expected to adopt an allocation to support the operation of vehicular radars in the 76-81 GHz range on a worldwide basis. In response to the Bosch petition, several commenters contend that global spectrum harmonization of LRRs at 76-77 GHz and SRRs at 78-81 GHz will reduce prices and will encourage deployment of automotive radars in lower-cost vehicles. Lastly, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), in prior matters regarding vehicular radars operating in the 24 GHz band, encouraged us to continue to monitor technology advancements in the 77-81 GHz range and committed to “work with the Commission to ensure that an adequate frequency allocation in the 77-81 GHz band is available for the operation of vehicular radar systems.”

    31. The Commission believes that new proposed radar operations will be compatible with incumbent operations in the 76-81 GHz band. As a general matter, the same technical principles that already allow successful shared operation in the 76-77 GHz band should apply in the larger 76-81 GHz range.

    32. In the Vehicular Radar R&O, the Commission has already established that vehicular radars and RAS are compatible in the 76-77 GHz band. In that proceeding, it noted that the National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsored a study documenting measurements performed jointly by representatives from the radio astronomy community and several vehicular radar manufacturers in which vehicular radar emissions were measured in the 77-80 GHz range. Tests performed in the study with stationary short range vehicular radar systems, positioned at distances of 1.7 km and 26.9 km from the University of Arizona's 12 Meter millimeter wave telescope, demonstrated that these radars could have a significant impact upon radio astronomy observations in the 77 to 81 GHz region. The Joint Study concludes that a zone of avoidance of about 30 to 40 km around a mm-wave observatory would be needed, in order to keep interference from a single vehicle below the threshold defined in ITU-R RA.769-2. It further concludes that smaller zones of avoidance might suffice in areas without direct line of sight to the radio telescope and/or by taking mitigation factors into account. The study acknowledged that mitigation factors, such as terrain shielding, orientation of the vehicular radar transmitter antenna with respect to the observatory, or attenuation of the vehicular radar transmitter if mounted behind the vehicle bumper, were not taken into account and would tend to reduce the distance at which interference could occur. Commenters offered mixed views on the interference issue; however, none offered specific reasons to refute the conclusions in the study. The Commission therefore seeks comment on the conclusions of the study and how the results of the study would impact a proposal to adopt technical requirements for the entire 76-81 GHz band similar to the existing vehicular radars operating in 76-77 GHz band. How can mitigation factors be used to reduce interference to radio observatories? The Commission invites interested parties to comment on the potential for such interference. In particular, it invites interested parties who believe that the NSF study does not accurately describe the potential for such interference to submit evidence in the record sufficient to support their arguments. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the potential for interference resulting from vehicular radars in the 76-77 GHz band is likely to be similar to or different from the potential for such interference in the entire 76-81 GHz band. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether the mitigation factors identified in the study should be implemented for vehicular radars.

    33. The Commission also believes that vehicular radar use in the expanded frequency range of 77-81 GHz will be compatible with FOD detection radars and LPR devices in that range. Although the Commission discusses proposals to expand the use of FOD detection radars in detail, it tentatively concludes here the same principles that informed our conclusion in the Vehicular Radar R&O that these uses are compatible in the 76-77 GHz band also apply in the 77-81 GHz band. The Commission believes that the limited geographic usage of FOD detection radars (i.e. at airports and not illuminating public roadways) along with the propagation characteristics of the millimeter wave band yields negligible risk of interference potential between vehicular and FOD detection radars. In the expanded 76-81 GHz frequency range, the Commission similarly believes that LPR devices will be able to continue to co-exist with vehicular radars. LPR equipment is installed in a downward-looking position at fixed locations and the main-beam emission limits have been carefully calculated to avoid receiving or causing harmful interference to other radio services. The Commission seeks comment on these observations and tentative conclusions.

    34. In its petition, Bosch states that it expects no interference issues between Amateur Radio operation and vehicular radar operations at 77-81 GHz. It notes that it is unconvinced after several meetings with the technical staff of ARRL that there is any “significant incompatibility” and describes how amateur operations in the band “tend to be largely experimental, occurring in geographic areas such as mountaintops and other rural areas where motor vehicle operation is not typical.” However, the Commission has previously recognized evidence of potential interference conflicts between the amateur-satellite service and vehicular radar systems in the 76-77 GHz band. Given that similar propagation characteristics exist throughout the millimeter wave band frequencies, there appears to be the potential for similar compatibility issues to exist between the amateur-satellite service and vehicular radar systems above 77 GHz. The Commission seeks to expand its record on the compatibility between amateur and vehicular radar services. In particular, are there any mitigation strategies for compatibility between the two services? Are there any additional interference or compatibility studies that may exist on the subject? The goal is to adopt rules that address amateur use, including amateur satellite use, within the 76-81 GHz band in a comprehensive and consistent manner.

    35. In its proposal, Bosch suggests that the Commission support SRR in the 77-81 GHz band by modifying our existing part 15 rules. Because the existing vehicular radars are governed under our rules for unlicensed devices, they may not cause interference to licensed services, and must accept interference from both licensed and unlicensed users. For reasons discussed in more detail below, this regulatory structure may not be the most appropriate fit. Nevertheless, the Commission seeks comment on the proposal.

    36. The Commission is proposing an approach by which it would establish vehicular radars as a service licensed by rule within part 95 of its rules under a radiolocation allocation, but also seek comment on other options, including authorizing an expansion of vehicular radars under the current part 15 model. The Commission's approach in proposing to migrate vehicular radar services from part 15 to part 95 of its rules is based on several factors. A licensed approach would make the 76-81 GHz vehicular radar services consistent with other transportation-related services currently operating under parts 90 and 95 of the rules—in particular, the 5.9 GHz Dedicated Short-range Communication (DSRC) services, a Department of Transportation initiative to integrate communication and information technology to advance transportation systems. Additionally, Bosch, in its petition, states that SRRs in the 79 GHz band “require a certain (albeit low) degree of interference protection in order to function adequately.” A unified licensed approach for all vehicular radars under our part 95 rules can offer a level of interference protection that the part 15 rules cannot provide. While the Commission notes that Bosch proposes modifying only the existing part 15 rules to support vehicular radar applications, it does not anticipate any opposition from Bosch for a licensing approach under the part 95 rules. Finally, in light of these considerations and the ongoing work to adopt an international allocation to support the operation of vehicular radars in the 76-81 GHz range on a worldwide basis, the Commission seeks comment on licensing by rule, pursuant to part 95, the proposed 77-81 GHz vehicular radar services the Commission proposed and on migrating existing 76-77 GHz vehicular radar services to part 95 of the s rules. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on any benefits or drawbacks such an approach would provide and whether it would be appropriate to continue to authorize vehicular radars on an unlicensed basis.

    37. The Commission's Personal Radio Services rules, codified in part 95, provide for a variety of personal communications, radio signaling, and business communications. In addition, many of these services are licensed by rule—that is, a user is not required to obtain an individual license document and is instead authorized to operate so long as it does so in accordance with the applicable service rules. Radio services licensed in this manner—such as the Family Radio Service and the Wireless Medical Telemetry Service—are typically designed to support a particular type of application (e.g. voice communication or telemetry), and its users must cooperatively share use of the spectrum. The Commission believes such an arrangement is a good match for vehicular radars—especially because it would likely be impractical to individually license users (e.g. each vehicle owner or driver) and because the nature of the millimeter wave band makes it possible for LRR and SSR vehicular radars to share use of the band. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to modify part 95 of our rules to incorporate the range of frequencies available to vehicular radars under a new 76-81 GHz Band Radar Service. In addition, by making vehicular radars authorized as a licensed service, the Commission would also promote greater regulatory parity with other radar applications, including the FOD detection radars and other types of radars that it discusses in detail in the following text, in the band. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.

    38. Under the proposed rules, the Commission would adopt the same emission limits as those defined in its rules for unlicensed vehicular radars in the 76-77 GHz band for the entire 76-81 GHz band, and to likewise adopt technical specifications that mirror those currently provided under the Commission's part 15 rules for the newly expanded radar band. The Commission does not propose to distinguish between SRR and LRR operations in our rules, but instead rely on the market to determine the appropriate portions of the 76-81 GHz band for particular types of vehicular radar applications. As noted in the Bosch petition, as well as the related comment record, it already appears that there is widespread industry consensus on locating new SRR applications above 77 GHz. The Commission seeks comment on the applicability of these rules for both SRR and LRR across the 76-81 GHz band. Commenters that advocate different rules should provide detailed technical analyses showing how their preferred rules will provide for both SRR and LRR in the band as well as minimize any potential harmful interference with other services. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on our proposal not to specify specific portions of the band for SRR and LRR, but instead to rely on the market and the standards process to determine the best use of the available bandwidth. The Commission is proposing to upgrade the allocation status of the radiolocation service in the 77.5-78 GHz band. Currently the radio astronomy and space research (space-to-Earth) services are allocated on a secondary basis in the 77.5-78 GHz band. Should the radio astronomy and space research services also be upgraded to a primary allocation status in the 77.5-78 GHz band?

    39. To support the expanded frequency range for vehicular radar use, the Commission proposes to allocate the 77.5-78 GHz band segment to the radiolocation service on a co-primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use. This would result in a co-primary allocation throughout the entire 77-81 GHz band. The Commission seeks comment on this allocation proposal.

    40. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on whether vehicular radars should continue to operate as unlicensed devices under the part 15 rules. And, if so, whether FOD detection devices and other radar applications should be authorized in a consistent manner. Given anticipated extensive use of this spectrum, would band sharing under an unlicensed approach without any assurance of protection from harmful interference under the rules? What would be the relative benefits and disadvantages of unlicensed operation compared with the license-by-rule approach under part 95 or with the individual station licensing under part 90? The Commission seeks comment on our proposals and these alternatives.

    41. Lastly, the Commission proposes to consolidate future vehicular radar use into the new 76-81 GHz band as part of our effort to ensure spectrally efficient use of resources. Currently, vehicular radars may operate on an unlicensed basis in the 16.2-17.7 GHz, 23.12-29.0 GHz, 46.7-46.9 GHz, and 76-77 GHz bands. Continental, in its comments supporting the Bosch petition, notes that the use of the 24 GHz band for vehicular radars is being phased out in Europe and that “the effect of the cessation of the use of that band in Europe will strongly affect availability of 24 GHz radars in the United States in the near term.” In addition, the Commission's records indicate no certifications in the 16.2-17.7 GHz and 46.7-46.9 GHz bands, and only three certifications in the 23.12-29 GHz band. This record suggests that there is little or no use of vehicular radars outside the 24 GHz and 76-77 GHz bands.

    42. The Commission proposes to grandfather, for the life of the equipment, vehicular radars that are already installed or in use in the 22-29 GHz band range. It may be financially burdensome and logistically difficult for automobile owners to upgrade existing equipment; alternately, discontinuing the use of these radars would mean that drivers might not be able to repair existing equipment or might have to forego useful safety features. The Commission intends to prohibit the certification of new vehicular radars that do not operate in the 76-81 GHz range, effective 30 days from the date of publication of our final rules in the Federal Register. However, the Commission also believes that the ultimate transition of SRR applications from 22-29 GHz band to 77-81 GHz is best driven by the marketplace. If not, the Commission seeks comment as to how should the life cycle of SRRs operating in the 22-29 GHz band be taken into account in facilitating the transition of these radars to the 77-81 GHz band. The Commission also seeks comment on what appropriate methods of making a determination should be considered to set forth reasonable periods of time required for market place to make the 77-81 GHz band SRR readily available. To implement its proposal, the Commission intends to modify Sections 15.37, 15.252, 15.253, and 15.515, as shown in the attached rules appendix. In addition, given that there appears to be no equipment certified to operate in the 16.2-17.7 GHz and 46.7-46.9 GHz bands, should the Commission instead delete the portions of those rules that relate to vehicular radars in those bands?

    FOD Detection Radar

    43. As previously mentioned, FOD at airports includes any substance, debris, or object in a location that can damage aircraft or equipment. FOD detection radars currently operate under part 15 and under part 90 of the Commission's rules in the frequency bands 76-77 GHz (unlicensed) and 78-81 GHz (licensed) respectively. However, the Commission only recently authorized and not yet established technical rules for licensed FOD detection radar operation under part 90.

    44. The Commission proposes to consolidate the FOD detection radar operations in the 76-81 GHz band under part 95 on a non-exclusive licensed basis. Also, with the introduction of specific technical requirements for these applications, the burden to facilitate coordination for these applications will be reduced. This proposal will afford an additional one gigahertz of spectrum (77-78 GHz), for these important applications. By providing a contiguous band of spectrum for FOD detection radars, the Commission can foster the development of technologically improved and cost-effective safety measures that will benefit both airport personnel and the general public. The 76-81 GHz band is well suited for FOD detection radar functions, including real-time monitoring of the position and shape of the foreign objects debris on the runways and taxiways.

    45. As an initial matter, the Commission believes that the rationale for concluding that increased vehicular radar operations can be expanded throughout the 76-81 GHz band and such operations can co-exist with FOD detection radars is broadly applicable. In other words, there is good reason to conclude that, if vehicular radars can co-exist with FOD detection radars in 76-77 GHz band, then both vehicular radars and FOD detection radars operating under the part 95 rules will be able to operate successfully throughout the 76-81 GHz band. Furthermore, the Commission believes that our proposal will not increase the interference potential to any other authorized services operating in the band. The services that the Commission proposes to reallocate to the 76-81 GHz band typically employ highly directional antennas both to detect vehicles or objects in a particular area and to compensate for the relatively high propagation losses over short distances at these frequencies. The narrow beams utilized by the FOD detection radars, the geographic location of operations, and the very high path losses in this region of the spectrum, should mitigate any potential interference. The location of FOD detection radars should prevent them from illuminating public roads, and should further reduce any likelihood of interference to vehicular radars while enabling airports to improve debris detection on the runways.

    46. Our proposal would result in all radar applications operating in the 76-81 GHz range—including vehicular radars and mobile and fixed radars used at airport only for FOD detection and for monitoring aircraft and airport service vehicles—being governed by a single new subpart in part 95. This approach will promote spectrum efficiency and maximize the shared use of our spectrum resource, while also providing a comprehensive and consistent set of rules and policies to govern each of the different types of radar applications. In the case of FOD detection radars, it reduces the application and licensing burdens that will be associated with operation in the 78-81 GHz band under the part 90 model, and it offers the simplicity of operation under a singular licensing model. Also, the limited geographic use area and limited number of FOD detection radars alleviates any burdens associated with the sharing of spectrum. Thus, the Commission believes that the benefits in the unified licensing of FOD detection radars under part 95 outweigh any burdens. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.

    47. The Commission proposes to grandfather, for the life of the equipment, FOD detection radars that are already installed or in use in the 76-81 GHz band range. The Commission intends to prohibit the certification of new FOD detection radars, operating in the 76-81 GHz range, under part 90 of our Rules effective April 6, 2015. The Commission seeks comment on its proposals.

    Fixed Radar

    48. The Commission proposes to adopt rules that would permit fixed radar infrastructure applications as discussed below. Fixed infrastructure radars can detect locations of stopped vehicles or pedestrians on roads, provide obstacle detection capability for industrial machinery including port cranes, mining trucks and locomotives, and provide security monitoring for government and public infrastructures. As previously mentioned, Navtech filed a petition for partial reconsideration asking the Commission to reconsider its decision that limited the use of fixed infrastructure radars in the 76-77 GHz band to airports only. The Commission's proposal largely tracks the issues Navtech raised in its petition.

    49. In the Vehicular Radar NPRM, the Commission stated that the proposal to limit fixed radar operations to specific locations such as airports or other places where fixed radars would not illuminate public roads may be overly restrictive and could cause unnecessary burdens to the public if implemented. The Commission stated that fixed radars operating at the same maximum power levels as vehicular-mounted radars would be even less likely to interfere with the RAS and Radiolocation services than vehicle-mounted radars because the locations where they are used would not change. The Commission stated that fixed radars should be able to co-exist with vehicular radars because they both operate with the same power level and use antennas with narrow beam-widths, thus reducing the chances that the signal from one radar would be within the main lobe of the receive antenna of the other. In a worst-case scenario, where two radars are aiming directly at each other, fixed radar should have no more impact on vehicular radar then that by another radar located on a stationary vehicle. The Commission continues to believe this is the case.

    50. The Commission's decision in the Vehicular Radar R&O to restrict the use of fixed infrastructure radar operation to airports was based on the fact that no parties had come forward to establish a clear demand for fixed radar applications beyond airport locations in the band and there were no conclusive data indicating that there would be compatibility between the vehicular and fixed radar types. The Commission observes that Navtech's petition for partial reconsideration demonstrates that that there is demand for fixed infrastructure radars beyond airport locations. In its petition, Navtech describes current and future applications of fixed infrastructure radars. Examples of such current use includes monitoring tunnels or bridges for stopped vehicles, providing collision warning system for ship-to-shore cranes, and providing train detection for automatic control functions. Moreover, in April 2014, Mantissa Ltd. stated that it supported further proceedings consistent with the Navtech petition because it is interested in deploying fixed radar technologies in the United States for security applications.

    51. In the Vehicular Radar R&O, the Commission stated that it continued to believe that vehicular radars should be able to share the band with fixed radars operating at the same level and thinks those observations continue to be sound. At that time, the Commission noted that there were also no existing reports or studies that indicated incompatibility between the two types of radars. The Commission is unaware of any report or study that indicates incompatibility between the two types of radars, but the it recognizes that the record on this matter may still be evolving. The limited record that is available on this subject does not have the support of all interested parties in the matter. In the most recent comments received by the Commission in response to fixed infrastructure radars, the automotive industry opposes the use of these radars citing interference with vehicular radars. The automotive industry cites an ongoing study known as MOSARIM (More Safety for All by Radar Interference Mitigation), which suggested that vehicular radars and fixed infrastructure radars are incompatible due to the interference issues. Navtech, on the other hand, refutes the study and asserts that it was unfairly designed to favor the automotive industry. The Commission continues to believe that shared use by vehicular radars and fixed radars best promotes the public interest.

    52. The Commission seeks to update the record and is especially interested in whether there are interference studies or reports indicating compatibility or lack thereof between vehicular and fixed radars in the 76-77 GHz band. As mentioned before, the Commission continues to believe that where two radars are aiming directly at each other, fixed radar should have no more impact on a vehicular radar then that from a radar located on a stationary vehicle. The Commission seeks comment on its conclusion and is particularly interested in the arguments as to why or why not a fixed radar would be more interfering than a vehicular radar located on a stopped vehicle.

    53. While the Commission seeks broad comment on allowing the fixed infrastructure radar use within the 76-81 GHz range, it also asks commenters to address whether fixed infrastructure radars should be limited to the 76-77 GHz band. Because fixed infrastructure radars are intended to detect obstacles that are relatively large (e.g. pedestrians, vehicles, ships), a bandwidth of 1 gigahertz or less would appear to be sufficient for these fixed radars to identify the type and presence of such obstacles. For these reasons, the Commission is proposing to limit available bandwidth for fixed radars to 1 gigahertz and restricting operation to the 76-77 GHz band. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on other approaches for accommodating fixed radars. Such approaches could include permitting fixed infrastructure radars to operate in a different one gigahertz frequency range between 77-81 GHz band, or allowing them in the entire 76-81 GHz band but with limited bandwidth usage of 1 gigahertz or less for any given operation. Our goal here is to seek efficient use of the spectrum, harmonize global use of the spectrum, and facilitate development of technologies that serve public interest and convenience.

    Aircraft-Mounted Radar

    54. The Commission also seeks comment on expanding the use of radar in the 76-77 GHz band to provide for aircraft-mounted radars used only on the ground. This application, also referred to by Honeywell as “wingtip radar,” is used while aircraft are on the ground to prevent and or mitigate the severity of aircraft wing collisions while planes are moving between gates and runways. This matter tracks the issues Honeywell first raised in its petition for reconsideration in ET Docket No. 10-28.

    55. The Commission believes that wingtip radar technologies can provide important public benefits. Aircraft wingtip collisions, which account for approximately 25 percent of all aircraft ground accidents, involve substantial costs, both in terms of repairs to aircraft and ground facilities and in lost time for passengers due to flight delays and cancellations. Honeywell asserts that mitigating the risk of wingtip collisions can reduce these costs and improve safety for both aviation personnel and the travelling public. The use of wingtip radar also appears to support National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) safety recommendations regarding the use of anti-collision aids on aircraft.

    56. The Commission seeks to develop a full record on the compatibility of aircraft-mounted radar used only on the ground with the other applications in the 76-81 GHz band. At the time, Honeywell filed its petition, many automotive radar supporters expressed concern about the potential for interference. However, because the Commission expects that wingtip radars will be used in the same locations as FOD detection radars (that is, on airport property and, in the case of aircraft-mounted radars, only during taxi and other ground activities), and because the Commission has already tentatively concluded that FOD detection radars and automotive radars can successfully co-exist, it also tentatively concludes that aircraft-mounted radars should likewise be compatible with vehicular radars.

    57. As an initial matter, the Commission notes that there are functional differences between the FOD detection radar and wingtip radar applications that may promote compatibility between the two operations: wingtip radars can be useful during times of aircraft movement, such as taxiing between runways and ramp areas and while being pushed out of gates, while FOD detection appear to have high value in runway environments and before takeoff and landing. Therefore, it may be possible to create time and space separation between the FOD detection radar and wingtip radar application uses to reduce the potential for interference. In addition, the nature of the millimeter wave bands, as the Commission discussed supra, allows for extensive frequency reuse and can accommodate many discrete users. In response to Honeywell's petition, Xsight Systems—a manufacturer of FOD detection products—stated that it was “in the process of setting up a meeting with Honeywell to . . . investigate whether a potential for interference exists between Xsight's system and equipment that would operate under Honeywell's proposal.” The Commission seeks further information about the results of such discussions, as well as updated information about the status of wingtip radar product development.

    58. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it would be feasible to employ an automatic shut-off mechanism for wingtip radars that would prevent radar operation any time the aircraft is not on the ground. Are there existing aircraft components (such as altimeters) that could be used in conjunction with such a system, and if so, how easily could wingtip radar be integrated with such devices? Could such an automated system be easily deployable on all types of aircraft (e.g. commercial and personal)? The Commission tentatively concludes that it should adopt such an automatic shut-off mechanism, if such a mechanism is feasible, to protect the radio astronomy service from harmful interference that could be caused by inadvertent operation of a wingtip radar system while an aircraft is in flight. For this reason, the Commission proposes to distinguish wingtip radars from vehicular radars in our rules, as aircraft should not be considered as vehicles for purposes of radar use in the 76-81 GHz band. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on any compatibility issues with respect to other existing and proposed radar uses in the band, as well as to amateur radio users.

    59. While the Commission seeks broad comment on allowing wingtip radar use within the 76-81 GHz range, it notes that the wingtip radar may only require bandwidth of one gigahertz or less to detect obstacles in its path. For this reason, the Commission proposes to allow wingtip radars to operate with a bandwidth of 1 gigahertz in the 76-77 GHz band. Alternatively, and similar to the fixed radar proposals discussed above, the Commission seeks comment on other ways the it could accommodate wingtip radars. Such approaches could include permitting wingtip radars to operate in a different one gigahertz frequency range between 77-81 GHz band, or allowing them in the entire 76-81 GHz band but with limited bandwidth usage of one Gigahertz or less over any portion of the band. Our overall objective is to promote efficient use of the spectrum and facilitate development of technologies that will improve airport operations and provide important benefits to both airport personnel and the general public.

    Amateur Radio Use

    60. In conjunction with our efforts to develop a comprehensive policy for use of the 76-81 GHz band, the Commission seeks comment on how it should structure future amateur 4 mm band use. As background, the Commission decided to temporarily restrict amateur station access to the 76-77 GHz band in 1998 to ensure against potential interference to what were then newly developing vehicular radar systems. The Commission observed that amateur station transmissions in the 76-77 GHz were not significant at the time, reasoned that its action would not have an immediate impact on amateur operators, and stated that it planned to revisit the issue later. In 2004, the Commission extended the amateur-satellite allocation suspension, citing interference issues and suggesting that it would be useful to consider the development of technical sharing criteria for the band. Bosch, in its petition, does not seek to alter the current 76-77 GHz arrangement.

    61. Based on our proposals for new vehicular and other radars in the 77-81 GHz band, the Commission proposes to adopt a comprehensive approach for amateur radio use on these frequencies. Given the continuing lack of technical sharing criteria or any other evidence of compatibility, should the Commission extend the 76-77 GHz amateur suspension to the entire 76-81 GHz band? If so, should the Commission modify the current amateur suspension of use of the 76-77 GHz band by removing all amateur allocations from the 76-81 GHz band? Alternately, would it be possible to lift our suspension of the amateur service and conduct both amateur and vehicular radar operations in the entire 76-81 GHz band? The Commission tentatively concludes that there is no apparent technical reason to treat the 76-77 GHz and the 77-81 GHz bands differently. Commenters who believe that the Commission should continue to distinguish between the two bands should explain the reasons for doing so. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there are other approaches that would achieve compatibility between the amateur and radiolocation services within the 76-81 GHz band that the Commission has not discussed above.

    62. Bosch, in its petition, states that it “is unconvinced, after several meetings with technical staff of ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio, that there is any significant incompatibility between Amateur Radio and SRR operation at 79 GHz.” It says the nature of amateur use of this spectrum—largely experimental and occurring on mountaintops and locations where motor vehicle operation is not typical—will provide sufficient geographic separation to prevent interference from amateur users to new vehicular radar operations above 77 GHz. However, Bosch also notes that European regulators previously determined “that the use of SRR within the band 77-81 may be incompatible with the Radio Amateur Service,” but also concluded that amateur users could be accommodated in the 75.5-76 GHz band (which is not currently available in the U.S.). The Commission seeks comment on these points. Additionally, to help better inform its decision, the Commission seeks to develop a record on the types of amateur use, and the extent of such use, that is currently undertaken in the amateur 4 mm band.

    63. To the extent that commenters believe that amateur operators can continue to use the millimeter band, the Commission seeks comment on what additional rule modifications it would have to adopt to realize successful shared use of the entire band. For example, our existing service rules would permit amateur operators to transmit with significantly higher power than other proposed operations. Would adopting the same emission limits for amateur operations as the Commission proposed for other services in this band reduce the potential for mutual interference? Are there any additional conforming edits to the part 97 amateur radio service rules that the Commission would have to implement?

    64. If, instead, the Commission were to remove all amateur allocations from the 76-81 GHz range, it seeks comment on alternate spectrum that it might be able to make available in this general region. Bosch recommends an amateur allocation at 75.5-76 GHz, arguing that such an allocation would permit re-accommodation of any displaced Amateur Radio operators as the result of aggregate noise from SRRs in the 79 GHz band, and harmonize the United States Amateur allocation with that in ITU Region 1 and in other areas of the world. The Commission seeks comment on allocating the 75.5-76 GHz band to the amateur service if the Commission were to remove the amateur allocation, including amateur satellite, in the 76-81 GHz band.

    Service and Technical Rules

    65. The Commission set forth proposed rules that would license vehicular and FOD detection radars in the 76-81 GHz band and aircraft-mounted and fixed infrastructure radars in the 76-77 GHz band as licensed services under part 95 of our rules. The Commission also proposes to add a primary allocation for radiolocation in the 77.5-78 GHz band. The Commission proposes technical rules that would be appropriate for a part 95 licensed-by-rule approach.

    66. In general, the proposed technical rules are consistent with those already set forth for existing vehicular radar and FOD detection radars under part 15 of our rules, including that the average and peak emission limits for vehicular radars in the 76-81 GHz band not to exceed 88 µW/cm2 and 279 µW/cm2 respectively, measured at a distance of 3 meters from the exterior surface of the radiating structure. However, as discussed, the existing part 15 use is on a non-interference basis and may not be the best fit for the types of safety related applications that the Commission envisions being deployed in the 76-81 GHz range. Under our draft rules, users would operate on a licensed basis fully supported by a primary radiolocation allocation throughout the 76-81 GHz range. Authorizing these radars under part 95 of our rules will permit license-by-rule operation pursuant to section 307(e) of the Communications Act (Act). Under this approach, these devices may operate on a shared, non-exclusive basis with respect to each other and without the need for these radar systems to be individually licensed. By doing this, the Commission can provide for a greater range of radar uses while still allowing for an easy transition of existing equipment to part 95 operation. The Commission seeks comment on these proposed rules. To the extent commenters support either regulatory approach, such as unlicensed operation under part 15, they should identify any rules that need to be modified to support the different types of radar applications the Commission discuss herein.

    67. Because the existing part 95 rules do not specify rules for vehicular, FOD detection, aircraft-mounted and fixed infrastructure radar operations, the Commission propose to create a new subpart of part 95, titled the 76-81 GHz radar service, that will accommodate all authorized radar types within the band, but that will not otherwise distinguish among the different radar types. Our proposed service rules are intended to facilitate the industry in developing the various radar types in their authorized specific frequency ranges. For example, in the case of vehicular radars, the Commission leaves it up to the automotive industry to optimize the use of the 76-81 GHz frequency band and develop the SRR and LRR vehicular radar application within the band. Alternately, the Commission seeks comment on whether distinctive or differentiating rules for the different radars would be appropriate and if so, what those rules should be.

    68. To fully implement our proposal to accommodate radars under part 95, the Commission also proposes to make additional modifications to parts 1, 2, 15, and 90 of our rules. All of our proposed rule modifications are shown in this NPRM. The Commission seeks comment on all of these proposals, and invites commenters to identify any additional rules that the Commission would need to update to accomplish our objectives.

    Reconsideration Order

    69. As part of our comprehensive look at shared use of the 76-81 GHz band, the Commission has incorporated matters that were first raised in pleadings filed in ET Docket Nos. 10-28 and 11-90—namely Honeywell Aircraft's Petition relating to aircraft-mounted radar applications and Navtech's Fixed Radar Petition. Although the Commission believes that there is merit in considering the issues raised by Honeywell and Navtech in the context of the Vehicular Radar NPRM, the Commission concludes that the parties underlying petitions in the respective dockets should be denied.

    Honeywell Petition

    70. As background, Honeywell first submitted a letter to the Office of Engineering and Technology seeking clarification of the rules adopted in the Vehicular Radar R&O, but later refiled with the Commission's Secretary asking that it the Commission treat the letter as a petition for reconsideration. On October 31, 2012, the Commission issued a Public Notice treating it as such.

    71. Numerous representatives of the automotive industry as well as Xsight Systems, Inc., filed to oppose the Honeywell petition. These parties raised procedural arguments—that the issue of removing the current prohibition on the use of 76-77 GHz frequency range on aircraft or satellite was not properly raised in the proceeding and is otherwise outside the scope of the decision—as well as claims that there is insufficient evidence that both aircraft-mounted and vehicular radars can co-exist in the 76-77 GHz band. In response, Honeywell claims that the issues it raises are within the scope of the Commission's rulemaking proceeding, that there is no technical reason why aircraft-mounted radar cannot operate in the 76-77 GHz band while the aircraft is on ground, and that there is an urgent and recognized public interest need for the anti-collision benefits its aircraft-mounted radars can provide.

    72. The Commission deny Honeywell's petition. Section 1.429(b) of the Commission's rules provide three ways in which a petition for reconsideration can be granted, and none of these have been met. Honeywell has not shown that its petition relies on facts regarding fixed radar use which had not previously been presented to the Commission, nor does it show that its petition relies on facts that relate to events that changed since Honeywell had the last opportunity to present its facts regarding fixed radar use. Indeed, Honeywell did not previously participate in the proceeding before filing its letter. Moreover, it does not serve the public interest to consider Honeywell's facts and arguments via reconsideration of the existing dockets. The Commission agrees with the commenters who opposed the petition that there may be technical and policy considerations associated with aircraft-mounted radar applications that parties could not have reasonably anticipated nor had an opportunity to address. Any public interest associated with the consideration of Honeywell's arguments will be fully captured and considered within the new docket that the Commission initiates with this rulemaking By doing so, it can ensure that another aspect of the public interest is served—that is, that all interested parties have ample notice and comment opportunities with respect to the possible use of wingtip radars under our rules.

    Navtech Petition

    73. Similarly, the Commission agrees with those parties who oppose the Navtech pleading as procedurally defective. The Commission stated in the in the Vehicular Radar R&O that “no parties have come forward to support fixed radar applications beyond airport locations in this band,” and it decided not to adopt provisions for unlicensed fixed radar use other than those for FOD detection applications at airport locations. Because Navtech first participated in the proceeding when it filed its petition well after the decision was published, its petition fails to meet the timeliness standard of § 1.429(d).

    74. The Commission emphasize that our decision does not address whether there are substantive merits to these claims. Such issues are fully incorporated into the proposals the Commission makes in conjunction with the Vehicular Radar NPRM.

    75. Finally, because the Commission is considering several different types of radar applications that would share use within the millimeter wave bands, and because it is proposing a consolidated licensing scheme under our part 95 rules, the Commission concludes that it can best promote efficiency and reduce administrative burdens by opening a new docket, ET Docket No. 15-26. Here, the Commission will consider ongoing and future matters pertaining to the entire 76-81 GHz band in a consolidated and comprehensive manner. To that end, and in connection with its decision to deny the petitions for reconsideration discussed above, the Commission terminates ET Docket Nos. 10-28 and 11-90 (pertaining to vehicular radar) and WT Docket No. 11-202 (addressing FOD detection radar applications). The Commission concludes that future decisions regarding matters that it previously considered within those dockets can more practically be made within the comprehensive ET Docket No. 15-26 proceeding.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    76. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Reconsideration Order (NPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines specified in the NPRM for comments. The Commission will send a copy of this NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).2 In addition, the Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.3

    1 See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (SBREFA) Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).

    2 See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).

    3 See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).

    A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    77. This Notice responds to petitions for rulemaking filed by Robert Bosch, LLC (Bosch) requesting modifications to § 15.253 of the rules to extend operating frequency for vehicular radar systems from 76-77 GHz to the 76-81 GHz band. Vehicular radars can determine the exact distance and relative speed of objects in front of, beside, or behind a car to improve the driver's ability to perceive objects under bad visibility conditions or objects that are in blind spots. Some examples of vehicular radar systems include collision warning and mitigation systems, blind spot detection systems, lane change assist, and parking aid systems. The Notice proposes to extend the operating frequency for unlicensed vehicular radar systems from 76-77 GHz to 76-81 GHz. These modifications to the rules will provide more efficient use of spectrum, and enable the automotive industries to develop enhanced safety measures for drivers and the general public.

    78. Airports are challenged with managing increasing congestion on the ground. These rule modification will add to the tools that enhance an airport's ability to determine the location of airplanes and airport ground vehicles that are operating in taxiways and runways. The presence of foreign object debris (FOD) in an airport's air operations area (AOA) poses a significant threat to the safety of air travel. Foreign object debris on taxiways and runways has the potential to damage aircraft during the critical phases of takeoffs and landings, which can lead to catastrophic loss of life and at the very least increased maintenance and operating costs.4 These rule modification will help reduce FOD hazards through the implementation of a FOD management program and the effective use of FOD detection and removal equipment.5

    4 On July 25, 2000, Air France Flight 4590 crashed shortly after take-off from Charles de Gaulle Airport outside Paris, France. All one hundred passengers and nine crewmembers, plus four people on the ground, were killed. The official investigation, concluded by France's Bureau Enquetes-Accidents, determined that the catastrophic series of events that caused the Concorde crash were precipitated when FOD on the runway tore a tire, resulting in additional damage to the aircraft. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jan/17/concorde.world.

    5 See U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation administration Advisory Circular No. 105/5210-24, http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150_5210_24.pdf (hereinafter AC 105/5210-24).

    79. Our rule modifications also propose to expand the use of radar in the 76-77 GHz band to aircraft-mounted radars. This application, also referred to as “wingtip radar” and used only while aircraft are on the ground, is intended to prevent or mitigate the severity of aircraft wing collisions while the plane is taxiing tarmacs. Mitigating the risk of wingtip collisions can reduce costs and improve safety for both aviation personnel and the travelling public.6 The use of wingtip radar also appears to support National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) safety recommendation regarding the use of anti-collision aids on aircraft.7 Our overall objective is to promote efficient use of the spectrum and facilitate development of technologies that will improve airport operations and provide enhance safety measures for both airport personnel and the general public.

    6 See Aircraft Petition Reply at 4.

    7 See NTSB Mar. 13, 2013 ex parte filing in ET Docket No. 10-28 and RM-1190. All newly manufactured and newly type-certificated large airplanes and other airplane models where the wingtips are not easily visible from the cockpit to provide a cockpit indication that will help pilots determine wingtip clearance and path during taxi. The recommendation also requires retrofitting all existing airplane models with an anti-collision aid where the wingtips are not easily visible from the cockpit.

    80. There is new demand for fixed infrastructure radar applications beyond airport locations. Some of these applications are monitoring tunnels or bridges for stopped vehicles, providing collision warning systems for ship-to-shore cranes and providing train detection for automatic train control.8 In our rule modifications to permit such use we seek efficient use of the spectrum, harmonize global use of the spectrum, and facilitate development of technologies that serve public interest and convenience.

    8 See Fixed Radar Petition at 3-4

    B. Legal Basis

    81. This action is authorized under sections 1, 4(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), 332, and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1, 4(i), 154(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), 332, 337.

    C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply

    82. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein.9 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 10 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.11 A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).12

    9 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(3).

    10 5 U.S.C. 601(6).

    11 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”

    12 15 U.S.C. 632.

    83. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.” 13 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: all such firms having 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 939 establishments in this category that operated for part or all of the entire year. According to Census bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 939 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 912 had fewer than 500 employees and 17 had more than 1000 employees.14 Thus, under that size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

    13 The NAICS Code for this service 334220. See 13 C.F.R 121/201. See also http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=300&-ds_name=EC0731SG2&-_lang=en.

    14 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=4500&-ds_name=EC0731SG3&-_lang=en.

    D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

    84. Radars operating in the 76-81 GHz band are required to be authorized under the Commission's certification procedure as a prerequisite to marketing and importation, and the NPRM proposes no change to that requirement.

    E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    85. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.15

    15 See 5 U.S.C. 603(c).

    86. The proposals contained in this NPRM are deregulatory in nature, which we expect will simplify compliance requirements for all parties, particularly small entities, and permit the development of improved radar systems. Extending the frequency for unlicensed vehicular radar from 76-77 GHz to 76-81 GHz will enable global spectrum harmonization of LRRs at 76-77 GHz and SRRs at 77-81 GHz that will reduce prices and encourage deployment of automotive radars in lower-cost vehicles. Consolidating FOD detection radars to operate under part 95 in lieu of current rules will reduce unnecessary burdens for the general public and will provide increased spectrum efficiency.

    F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules

    87. None.

    Ordering Clauses

    88. Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 301, 302, and 303(f) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 301, 302a, and 303(f), that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted and the Petition for Rulemaking filed by Robert Bosch in RM-11666 is granted to the extent described herein.

    89. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 405, the petitions for reconsideration filed by Honeywell and Navtech in ET Docket Nos. 10-28 and 11-90 are denied.

    90. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), and 303 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j) and 303, that ET Docket Nos. 10-28 and 11-90 and WT Docket No. 11-202 are closed and the proceedings are terminated should no petitions for reconsideration or applications for review be timely filed.

    91. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 15, 90 and 95

    Administrative practice and procedure, Radio, Unlicensed services.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 1, 2, 15, 90, and 95 as follows:

    PART 1—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 303, 309, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452 and 1455.

    2. Section 1.1307 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) to read as follows:
    § 1.1307 Actions that may have a significant environmental effect, for which Environmental Assessments (EAs) must be prepared.

    (b) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) Mobile and portable transmitting devices that operate in the Commercial Mobile Radio Services pursuant to part 20 of this chapter; the Cellular Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this chapter; the Personal Communications Services (PCS) pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; the Satellite Communications Services pursuant to part 25 of this chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services pursuant to part 27 of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth stations only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the Specialized Mobile Radio Service, the 4.9 GHz Band Service, or the 3650 MHz Wireless Broadband Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; the Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS), the Medical Device Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio), or the 76-81 GHz Band Radar Service pursuant to part 95 of this chapter are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, as specified in §§ 2.1091 and 2.1093 of this chapter.

    (ii) Unlicensed PCS, unlicensed NII and millimeter wave devices are also subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, as specified in §§ 15.255(g), 15.257(g), 15.319(i), and 15.407(f) of this chapter.

    PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS 3. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.

    4. Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended by revising page 61 to read as follows:
    § 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations. Table of Frequency Allocations (EHF) 71-100 GHz Page 61 International table Region 1 table Region 2 table Region 3 table United States table Federal table Non-federal table FCC Rule part(s) 71-74
  • FIXED
  • FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
  • MOBILE
  • MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
  • 71-74
  • FIXED
  • FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
  • MOBILE
  • MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
  • US389
  • Fixed Microwave (101).
    74-76
  • FIXED
  • FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
  • MOBILE
  • BROADCASTING
  • BROADCASTING-SATELLITE
  • Space research (space-to-Earth)
  • 5.561
  • 74-76
  • FIXED
  • FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
  • MOBILE
  • Space research (space-to-Earth)
  • US389
  • 74-76
  • FIXED
  • FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
  • MOBILE
  • BROADCASTING
  • BROADCASTING-SATELLITE
  • Space research (space-to-Earth)
  • US389
  • RF Devices (15).
  • Fixed Microwave (101).
  • 76-77.5
  • RADIO ASTRONOMY
  • RADIOLOCATION
  • Amateur
  • Amateur-satellite
  • Space research (space-to-Earth)
  • 5.149
  • 76-77.5
  • RADIO ASTRONOMY
  • RADIOLOCATION
  • Space research (space-to-Earth)
  • US342
  • 76-77.5
  • RADIO ASTRONOMY
  • RADIOLOCATION
  • Amateur
  • Amateur-satellite
  • Space research (space-to-Earth)
  • US342
  • RF Devices (15).
  • Amateur Radio (97).
  • 77.5-78
  • AMATEUR
  • AMATEUR-SATELLITE
  • Radio astronomy
  • Space research (space-to-Earth)
  • 5.149
  • 77.5-78
  • RADIOLOCATION
  • Radio astronomy
  • Space research (space-to-Earth)
  • US342
  • 77.5-78
  • AMATEUR
  • AMATEUR-SATELLITE
  • RADIOLOCATION
  • Radio astronomy
  • Space research (space-to-Earth)
  • US342
  • 78-79
  • RADIOLOCATION
  • Amateur
  • Amateur-satellite
  • Radio astronomy
  • Space research (space-to-Earth)
  • 5.149 5.560
  • 78-79
  • RADIO ASTRONOMY
  • RADIOLOCATION
  • Space research (space-to-Earth)
  • 5.560 US342
  • 78-79
  • RADIO ASTRONOMY
  • RADIOLOCATION
  • Amateur
  • Amateur-satellite
  • Space research (space-to-Earth)
  • 5.560 US342
  • 79-81
  • RADIO ASTRONOMY
  • RADIOLOCATION
  • Amateur
  • Amateur-satellite
  • Space research (space-to-Earth)
  • 5.149
  • 79-81
  • RADIO ASTRONOMY
  • RADIOLOCATION
  • Space research (space-to-Earth)
  • US342
  • 79-81
  • RADIO ASTRONOMY
  • RADIOLOCATION
  • Amateur
  • Amateur-satellite
  • Space research (space-to-Earth)
  • US342
  • 5. Section 2.1091 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) introductory text and paragraph (c)(2) to read as follow:
    § 2.1091 Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: mobile devices

    (c)(1) Mobile devices that operate in the Commercial Mobile Radio Services pursuant to part 20 of this chapter; the Cellular Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this chapter; the Personal Communications Services pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; the Satellite Communications Services pursuant to part 25 of this chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services pursuant to part 27 of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth station devices only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the Specialized Mobile Radio Service, the 3650 MHz Wireless Broadband Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; and the 76-81 GHz Radar Band Service pursuant to part 95 of this chapter are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use if:

    (2) Unlicensed personal communications service devices, unlicensed millimeter wave devices and unlicensed NII devices authorized under §§ 15.255(g), 15.257(g), 15.319(i), and 15.407(f) of this chapter are also subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use if their ERP is 3 watts or more or if they meet the definition of a portable device as specified in § 2.1093(b) requiring evaluation under the provisions of that section.

    6. Section 2.1093 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
    § 2.1093 Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: portable devices.

    (c)(1) Portable devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this chapter; the Personal Communications Service (PCS) pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; the Satellite Communications Services pursuant to part 25 of this chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services pursuant to part 27 of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth station devices only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the Specialized Mobile Radio Service, the 4.9 GHz Band Service, and the 3650 MHz Wireless Broadband Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; and the Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS), the Medical Device Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio), and the 76-81 GHz Band Radar Service, pursuant to subparts H, I, and M of part 95 of this chapter, respectively, and unlicensed personal communication service, unlicensed NII devices and millimeter wave devices authorized under §§ 15.255(g), 15.257(g), 15.319(i), and 15.407(f) of this chapter are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use.

    PART 15—RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES 7. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 544a and 549.

    8. Section 15.37 is amended by adding paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as follows:
    § 15.37 Transition provision for compliance with the rules.

    (i) Effective [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF Federal Register PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] the certification of UWB vehicular radars that operate in the 22-29 GHz band will no longer be permitted. Existing equipment may continue to operate in accordance with their previous certification.

    (j) Effective [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF Federal Register PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] the certification of field disturbance sensors that operate in the 16.2-17.7 GHz, 23.12-29.0 GHz, 46.7-46.9 GHz and 76.0-77.0 GHz bands will no longer be permitted. Existing equipment may continue to operate in accordance with their previous certification.

    9. Section 15.252 is amended by adding introductory text to read as follows:
    § 15.252 Operation of wideband vehicular radar systems within the bands 16.2-17.7 GHz and 23.12-29.0 GHz.

    Effective [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF Federal Register PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] field disturbance sensors that operate in the 16.2-17.7 GHz and 23.12-29.0 GHz bands will no longer be certified.

    10. Section 15.253 is amended by adding introductory text to read as follows:
    § 15.253 Operation within the bands 46.7-46.9 GHz and 76.0-77.0 GHz.

    Effective [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF Federal Register PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] field disturbance sensors and fixed radars that operate in the 46.7-46.9 GHz and 76.0-77.0 GHz bands will no longer be certified.

    11. Section 15.515 is amended by adding introductory text to read as follows:
    § 15.515 Technical requirements for vehicular radar systems.

    Effective [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF Federal Register PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] UWB field disturbance sensors that operate in the 22-29 GHz band will no longer be certified.

    PART 90-PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES 12. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7), and Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156.

    § 90.103 [Amended].
    13. Section 90.103 is amended by removing the last row of the table in paragraph (b) and removing paragraph (c)(30). PART 95-PERSONAL RADIO SERVICES 14. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302(a), 303, and 307(e).

    15. Section 95.401 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as follows: Subpart D—Citizens Band (CB) Radio Service
    § 95.401 (CB Rule 1) What are the Citizens Band Radio Services?

    (h) The 76-81 GHz Radar Service. The rules for this service are contained in Subpart M of this part. The 76-81 GHz Radar Service applications include, but are not limited to, vehicular radars and aircraft-mounted radars used for collision avoidance and other safety applications, as well as fixed radars used for foreign object debris detection at airports and for other purposes.

    16. Section 95.601 is amended to read as follows: Subpart E—Technical Regulations
    § 95.601 Basis and Purpose.

    This section provides the technical standards to which each transmitter (apparatus that converts electrical energy received from a source into RF (radio frequency) energy capable of being radiated) used or intended to be used in a station authorized in any of the Personal Radio Services must comply. This section also provides requirements for obtaining certification for such transmitters. The Personal Radio Services are the GMRS (General Mobile Radio Service)—subpart A, the Family Radio Service (FRS)—subpart B, the R/C (Radio Control Radio Service)—subpart C, the CB (Citizens Band Radio Service)—subpart D, the Low Power Radio Service (LPRS)—subpart G, the Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS)—subpart H, the Medical Device Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio)—subpart I, the Multi-Use Radio Service (MURS)—subpart J, Dedicated Short-Range Communications Service On-Board Units (DSRCS-OBUs)—subpart L, and the 76-81 GHz Radar Service—subpart M.

    17. Section 95.603 is amended by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
    § 95.603 Certification required.

    (i) Each 76-81 GHz Radar Service transmitter must be certified.

    18. Section 95.605 is revised to read as follows:
    § 95.605 Certification procedures.

    Any entity may request certification for its transmitter when the transmitter is used in the GMRS, FRS, R/C, CB, 218-219 MHz Service, LPRS, MURS, or MedRadio Service following the procedures in part 2 of this chapter. Dedicated Short-Range Communications Service On-Board Units (DSRCS-OBUs) must be certified in accordance with subpart L of this part and subpart J of part 2 of this chapter. 76-81 GHz Radar Service transmitters must be certified in accordance with subpart M of this part and subpart J of part 2 of this chapter.

    19. Add § 95.624 to read as follows:
    § 95.624 76-81 GHz Radar Service frequencies.

    Transmitters in the 76-81 GHz Radar Service may operate within the 76-81 GHz frequency band. Specific frequency and bandwidth limitations are specified in subpart M of this part.

    20. Section 95.631 is amended by adding paragraph (l) to read as follows:
    § 95.631 Emission types.

    (l) The 76-81 GHz Radar Service is governed under subpart M of this part.

    21. Section 95.633 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
    § 95.633 Emission bandwidth.

    (h) The 76-81 GHz Radar Service is governed under subpart M of this part.

    22. Section 95.635 is amended by revising the introductory text and table of paragraph (b) and adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 95.635 Unwanted radiation.

    (b) The power of each unwanted emission shall be less than TP as specified in the applicable paragraphs listed in the following table:

    Transmitter Emission type Applicable paragraphs (b) GMRS A1D, A3E, F1D, G1D, F3E, G3E with filtering (1), (3), (7). A1D, A3E, F1D, G1D, F3E, G3E without filtering (5), (6), (7). H1D, J1D, R1D, H3E, J3E, R3E (2), (4), (7). FRS F3E with filtering (1), (3), (7). R/C: 27 MHz As specified in § 95.631(b) (1), (3), (7). 72-76 MHz As specified in § 95.631(b) (1), (3), (7), (10), (11), (12). CB A1D, A3E (1), (3), (8), (9). H1D, J1D, R1D, H3E, J3E, R3E (2), (4), (8), (9). A1D, A3E type accepted before September 10, 1976 (1), (3), (7). H1D, J1D, R1D, H3E, J3E, R3E type accepted before September 10, 1986 (2), (4), (7). LPRS As specified in paragraph (c) MedRadio As specified in paragraph (d) DSRCS-OBU As specified in paragraph (f) of this section 76-81 GHz Radar Service As specified in paragraph (g) of this section

    (g) The 76-81 GHz Radar Service is governed under subpart M of this part.

    23. Section 95.637 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 95.637 Modulation standard.

    (g) The 76-81 GHz Radar Service is governed under subpart M of this part.

    24. Section 95.639 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
    § 95.639 Maximum transmitter power.

    (j) The 76-81 GHz Radar Service is governed under subpart M of this part.

    25. Add § 95.641 under the undesignated center heading Technical Standards to read as follows:
    § 95.641 76-81 GHz Radar Service certification.

    Sections 95.643 through 95.655 do not apply to certification of vehicular radar devices and fixed radar devices operating in the 76-81 GHz Band Radar Service. These devices must be certified in accordance with subpart M of this part and subpart J of part 2 of this chapter.

    26. Appendix 1 to Subpart E of part 95—Glossary of Terms is amended by adding the definition of “Field disturbance sensor” in alphabetical order to read as follows: Appendix 1 to Subpart E of Part 95—Glossary of Terms

    Field disturbance sensor. A device that establishes a radio frequency field in its vicinity and detects changes in that field resulting from the movement of persons or objects within its range.

    27. Add Subpart M to part 95 to read as follows: Subpart M—The 76-81 GHz Band Radar Service Sec. 95.1601 Scope. 95.1603 Permissible communications. 95.1605 Station identification. 95.1607 Station inspection. 95.1609 Authorized locations. 95.1611 Information to user. 95.1613 Frequency use policy. 95.1615 Technical requirements. 95.1617 RF safety.
    § 95.1601 Scope.

    This subpart sets out the regulations governing the operation of vehicular and fixed radars operating within the band 76.0-81 GHz. The following uses are permitted:

    In the 76-81 GHz band: vehicle-mounted field disturbance sensors used as vehicular radar systems; and mobile and fixed radar systems used at airport locations for foreign object debris detection on runways and for monitoring aircraft and service vehicles on taxiways and other airport vehicle service areas that have no public vehicle access. In the 76-77 GHz band: Fixed radars (other than the type described above), and radars that are mounted on aircraft and that are operated only while the aircraft is on the ground.

    § 95.1603 Permissible communications.

    The transmission of data is permitted provided the primary mode of operation is as a field disturbance sensor. Voice and video transmissions are prohibited.

    § 95.1605 Station identification.

    A station is not required to transmit a station identification announcement.

    § 95.1607 Station inspection.

    All 76-81 GHz Band Radar Service equipment must be made available for inspection upon request by an authorized FCC representative.

    § 95.1609 Authorized locations.

    The operation of a 76-81 GHz Band Radar Service transmitter under this part is authorized anywhere CB station operation is permitted under § 95.405 of this part.

    § 95.1611 Information to user.

    The user's manual or instruction manual for an intentional or unintentional radiator shall caution the user that changes or modifications not expressly approved by the party responsible for compliance could void the user's authority to operate the equipment. In cases where the manual is provided only in a form other than paper, such as on a computer disk or over the Internet, the information required by this section may be included in the manual in that alternative form, provided the user can reasonably be expected to have the capability to access information in that form.

    § 95.1613 Frequency use policy.

    (a) The frequencies authorized to 76-81 GHz Band Radar Service systems by this part are available on a shared basis only and will not be assigned for the exclusive use of any entity. Users should select and use frequencies in a manner that mitigates the risk of potential interference between authorized services.

    § 95.1615 Technical requirements.

    (a) The fundamental radiated emission limits within the band 76-81 GHz provided in this section are expressed in terms of Equivalent Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) and are as follows:

    (1) The maximum power (EIRP) within the bands specified in this section shall not exceed 50 dBm based on measurements employing a power averaging detector with a 1 MHz RBW.

    (2) The maximum peak power (EIRP) within the bands specified in this section shall not exceed 55 dBm based on measurements employing a peak detector with a 1 MHz RBW.

    (b) The unwanted emissions outside the operating band, 76-81 GHz, shall consist solely of spurious emissions and shall not exceed the following:

    (1) Radiated emissions below 40 GHz shall not exceed the field strength as shown in the following emission table:

    Frequency (MHz) Field strength
  • (microvolts/meter)
  • Measurement distance
  • (meters)
  • 0.009-0.490 2400/F(kHz) 300 0.490-1.705 24000/F(kHz) 30 1.705-30.0 30 30 30-88 100 3 88-216 150 3 216-960 200 3 Above 960 500 3

    (i) In the emission table in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the tighter limit applies at the band edges.

    (ii) The limits in the table in paragraph (b)(1) of this section are based on the frequency of the unwanted emission and not the fundamental frequency. However, the level of any unwanted emissions shall not exceed the level of the fundamental frequency.

    (iii) The emission limits shown in the table in paragraph (b)(1) of this section are based on measurements employing a CISPR quasi-peak detector except for the frequency bands 9.0-90.0 kHz, 110.0-490.0 kHz and above 1000 MHz. Radiated emission limits in these three bands are based on measurements employing an average detector with a 1 MHz RBW.

    (2) The power density of radiated emissions outside the operating band above 40.0 GHz shall not exceed the following employing an average detector with a 1 MHz RBW:

    (i) For radiated emissions between 40 and 200 GHz from field disturbance sensors and radar systems operating in the band 76-81 GHz: 600 pW/cm2 at a distance of 3 meters from the exterior surface of the radiating structure.

    (ii) For radiated emissions above 200 GHz from field disturbance sensors and radar systems operating in the 76-81 GHz band: 1000 pW/cm2 at a distance of 3 meters from the exterior surface of the radiating structure.

    (3) For field disturbance sensors and radar systems operating in the 76-81 GHz band, the spectrum shall be investigated up to 231.0 GHz.

    (c) Fundamental emissions must be contained within the frequency bands specified in this section during all conditions of operation. Equipment is presumed to operate over the temperature range −20 to +50 degrees Celsius with an input voltage variation of 85% to 115% of rated input voltage, unless justification is presented to demonstrate otherwise.

    § 95.1617 RF safety.

    Regardless of the power density levels permitted under this subpart, devices operating under the provisions of this subpart are subject to the radiofrequency radiation exposure requirements specified in §§ 1.1307(b), 2.1091 and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate. Applications for equipment authorization of devices operating under this section must contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements for both fundamental emissions and unwanted emissions. Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.

    [FR Doc. 2015-04032 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Chapter III [Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27748] Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Drivers of Commercial Motor Vehicles: Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Meetings AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of advisory committee public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    FMCSA announces the meeting schedule for the Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory Committee (ELDTAC), established to complete a negotiated rulemaking on Entry-Level Driver Training (ELDT) for individuals who want to operate Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs). ELDTAC is a negotiated rulemaking committee established to develop a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to implement section 32304 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) concerning ELDT standards for individuals applying for a commercial driver's license (CDL) or CDL upgrade. The meetings will be held Thursday-Friday, March 19-20, April 9-10 and 23-24, and May 14-15 and 28-29, 2015. The meetings are open to the public for their entirety.

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held Thursday-Friday, March 19-20, April 9-10 and 23-24, and May 14-15 and 28-29, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (E.T.), on Thursdays and 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., E.T., on Fridays at various locations in Washington, DC, and Arlington, VA. Specific locations and an agenda for each meeting will be posted in advance of the meetings at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/eldtac.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Shannon L. Watson, Senior Policy Advisor, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-2551, [email protected]

    Services for Individuals With Disabilities: For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Eran Segev at (617) 494-3174, [email protected], one week prior to each meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background Entry-Level Driver Training

    Section 32304 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405 (July 6, 2012)) requires FMCSA to establish new regulations concerning ELDT. MAP-21 requires “that the training regulations address knowledge and skills for motor vehicle operation, specific requirements for hazmat and passenger endorsements, create a certificate system for meeting requirements, and require training providers to demonstrate that their training meets uniform standards.” The new requirements would apply to individuals seeking a CDL to operate CMVs, as defined in 49 CFR 383.5.

    On August 19, 2014 (79 FR 49044), FMCSA announced that the Agency would explore the feasibility of conducting a negotiated rulemaking concerning entry-level driver training for drivers of CMVs. The Agency announced the hiring of a convener to speak with interested parties about the feasibility of conducting an ELDT negotiated rulemaking and requested public comments by September 18, 2014. As part of the first step in this process, the convener conducted these interviews and submitted a report to the Agency on November 26, 2014, regarding the feasibility of conducting a negotiated rulemaking. The convening report is available both in the rulemaking docket at FMCSA-2007-27748 and on the Internet at eldtac.fmcsa.dot.gov.

    On December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73273), FMCSA announced its intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee to negotiate and develop proposed regulations to implement the MAP-21 provision concerning ELDT based on the recommendations of the convener. On February 12, 2015 (80 FR 7814), FMCSA announced the appointment of members to the Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory Committee (ELDTAC) established to complete a negotiated rulemaking on ELDT for individuals who want to operate CMVs.

    ELDTAC

    The ELDTAC is established by charter in accordance with the Federal Advisory committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx signed the ELDTAC charter on January 15, 2015, which provides up to 2 years for the Committee's duration, in accordance with section 14 of FACA. Additionally, as the ELDTAC is a negotiated rulemaking committee (“Reg Neg”), it complies with the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. 564). The Committee is effective from the date of signature through January 15, 2017.

    ELDTAC Membership

    In its December 10, 2014, Federal Register notice, the Agency announced that it was soliciting applications and nominations for membership on the ELDTAC. These members are experts in their respective fields and appointed as Special Government employees or representatives of entities or interests including but not limited to the following: CMV driver training organizations; industry representatives; representatives of driver training schools; motor carriers (of property and passengers) and associations; State licensing agencies; State enforcement agencies; labor unions; safety advocacy groups; insurance companies; and others selected with a view toward achieving varied perspectives on ELDT. In an effort to balance these interests to the extent practicable, the FMCSA Acting Administrator appointed 26 members on January 30, 2015, who will each serve for up to one two-year term. The members met for the first time Thursday-Friday, February 26-27, 2015.

    II. Meeting Participation

    Oral comments from the public will be heard during the meeting, as managed by the Reg Neg facilitator.

    III. Submitting Written Comments

    Members of the public may submit written comments on the topics to be considered during the meeting one week prior to each meeting to Federal Docket Management System (FDMC) Docket Number FMCSA-2007-27748. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2007-27748). You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, put the docket number, FMCSA-2007-27748, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” When the new screen appears, click on the “Comment Now!” button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit.

    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.

    Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2007-27748, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” Next, click the “Open Docket Folder” button and choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Privacy Act

    DOT posts 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.

    IV. Future Committee Meetings and Rulemaking Calendar

    In coordination with the Reg Neg facilitator, FMCSA has developed this schedule of committee meetings, running through May 2015.

    FMCSA intends to complete the Reg Neg process for the proposed rule within the first half of 2015 and to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) this year, followed by a Final Rule in 2016. After the conclusion of the committee meetings, the Agency will draft the NPRM, which is expected to take approximately 6-8 weeks, depending on the degree of consensus on the issues and the supporting data developed by the committee. The NPRM will then be reviewed by DOT's Office of the Secretary and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Agency will then publish the NPRM for public comment.

    Following the close of the public comment period the Agency will evaluate and respond to public comments as it drafts a final rule, which will also undergo Departmental and OMB review. Although the time needed to address public comments to an NPRM that has been developed through a successful negotiated rulemaking process is typically shorter than for rules conducted through the ordinary informal notice and comment process, the Agency must nonetheless address substantive public comments in the final rule, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. While the Agency cannot state with certainty the time required to complete the Reg Neg process and notice and comment rulemaking, the target date for publication of an NPRM is October 15, 2015.

    Issued on: March 2, 2015. Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05197 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    80 44 Friday, March 6, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Farm Service Agency Commodity Credit Corporation Information Collection Request; Debt Settlement Policies and Procedures AGENCY:

    Farm Service Agency and Commodity Credit Corporation.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA) are requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on an extension of a currently approved information collection that supports the FSA and CCC Debt Settlement Policies and Procedure regulations.

    DATES:

    We will consider comments that we receive by May 5, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    We invite you to submit comments on this notice. In your comments, include the date, volume, and page number of this issue of the Federal Register, the OMB control number and the title of the information collection. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Thomas F. Harris II, Claims Program Specialist, Financial Management Division, Office of Budget and Finance, Farm Service Agency, USDA, STOP 0581, 355 E Street SW., Suite 11-181B, Washington, DC 20024.

    You may also send comments to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Copies of the information collection may be requested by contacting Thomas F. Harris at the above address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas F. Harris II, (202) 772-6014. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact the USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (Voice only).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Debt Settlement Policies and Procedures.

    OMB Control Number: 0560-0146.

    Expiration Date of Approval: July 31, 2015.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: This information collection is required to enable FSA and CCC to effectively administer the regulations at 7 CFR part 792 (FSA) and 7 CFR part 1403 (CCC) pertaining to debt settlement policies and procedures and the identification of and settlement of outstanding claims. Collection of outstanding debts owed to FSA or to CCC can be effected by installment payments if a debtor furnishes satisfactory evidence of inability to pay a claim in full, and if the debtor specifically requests an installment agreement. Part of the requirement is that the debtor furnishes a financial statement or other information that would disclose the debtor's assets and liabilities. This information is required in order to evaluate any proposed plan. Such requests for documentation furnished by the debtor are also used in the other collection tools employed by both FSA and CCC in managing debt settlement policies and procedures. If an installment agreement is approved, then a Promissory Note (CCC-279), or an approved alternative promissory note format, should be executed between the debtor and the FSA/CCC representative(s).

    During the past two years, $13,930,548.07 in debt collection for Farm Programs and for the Commodity Office was facilitated by the use of this requested information. Eighty four (84) Promissory Notes were established between debtors and FSA and CCC from 10/01/2013 to 10/01/2014. Total active Note amount for the past two years is presently 305 total Promissory Notes (includes beginning outstanding notes (213); total notes established (84); notes defaulted (1), notes paid off in full (25); notes paid, small balance loans (-25); notes written off (07) and notes discharged in Bankruptcy (00)) with a beginning outstanding amount in 2014 of $31,131,509.78, and an ending outstanding amount of $13,930,584.07. Collections for FSA and CCC from FSA/CCC offices, DOJ actions, and Voluntary Payments totaled $3,416,702.42. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA) requires the head of an agency to take all appropriate steps to collect delinquent debts before discharging the debts. The current information collection forms and formats have been successfully used for the past several years and have become familiar tools for both agency employees and producers. Thus, adequate forms and formats already exist and are in use. Developing new forms and formats would be costly and is not required to meet the demands of the DCIA. Public comment is requested on how the forms and process may be improved, as specified below. There are no changes to the information collection since the last OMB approval.

    The formula used to calculate the total burden hour is estimated average time per responses hours times total annual responses.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this information collection is estimated to average 0.66 hours per response. The average travel time, which is included in the total annual burden, is estimated to be 1 hour per respondent.

    Respondents: Producers participating in FSA and CCC programs.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 300.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 300.

    Estimated Average Time per Response: 0.66.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 200 Hours.

    We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us to:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Evaluate the quality, utility, and clarity of the information technology; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who respond through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses where provided, will be made a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection.

    Signed on March 3, 2015. Val Dolcini, Administrator, Farm Service Agency, and Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05227 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request March 2, 2015.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by April 6, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    National Agricultural Statistics Service

    Title: Colony Loss Surveys.

    OMB Control Number: 0535-NEW.

    Summary of Collection: The primary objectives of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) are to prepare and issue official State and national estimates of crop and livestock production, disposition and prices, economic statistics, and environmental statistics related to agriculture and to conduct the Census of Agriculture and its follow-on surveys. Pollinators (honeybees) are vital to the agricultural industry for producing food for the world's population. Ad hoc surveys showed a dramatic rise in the number of disappearances of honeybee colonies in North America in late 2006. The collapse or decline of honeybee colonies is significant economically because many agricultural crops worldwide are pollinated by European honeybees. General authority for these data collection activities is granted under U.S.C. Title 7, Section 2204.

    Need and Use of the Information: To collect critical information NASS will use two surveys which will complement its existing Bee and Honey Collection (0535-0153) that focuses on bee keepers with 5 or more colonies. The Colony Loss Quarterly Survey will be administered quarterly to a subsample of bee keepers responding to the annual Bee and Honey Inquiry. The Colony Loss Annual Survey will be administered to bee keepers with fewer than 5 colonies. The data collected will include state of colony residence, the commercial movement of colonies between states, newly added or replacement colonies, colony losses, and presence of colony stress factors, such as pests or parasites.

    Description of Respondents: Farmers and Beekeepers.

    Number of Respondents: 23,300.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Quarterly; One time.

    Total Burden Hours: 8,353.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05263 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Flathead National Forest, Montana; Revision of the Land Management Plan for the Flathead National Forest and an Amendment of the Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, and Lolo National Forest Plans To Incorporate Relevant Direction From the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    As directed by the National Forest Management Act, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, is preparing the Flathead National Forest's revised land management plan (forest plan) and an amendment to provide relevant direction from the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy into the forest plans for the Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark and Lolo National Forests. The Forest Service will prepare a single environmental impact statement (EIS) for its revised forest plan and the amendment.

    This notice briefly describes the proposed action based on the need to change the existing plans, the nature of the decision to be made, and information concerning public participation. This notice also provides estimated dates for filing the EIS, the name and address of the responsible agency officials, and the individuals who can provide additional information. Finally, this notice identifies the applicable planning rule that will be used for completing the plan revision and amendment.

    The revised Flathead forest plan will supersede the existing forest plan that was approved by the Regional Forester in 1986, and amended more than 20 times since. The existing Flathead forest plan will remain in effect until the revised forest plan takes effect. The management direction pertaining to grizzly bear within the current forest plans of the Helena National Forest, approved by the Regional Forester in 1986; Kootenai National Forest, approved by the Regional Forester in 2015; Lewis and Clark National Forest, approved by the Regional Forester in 1986; and Lolo National Forest, approved by the Regional Forester in 1986, as amended, will remain in effect until the proposed amendment takes effect.

    In response to this notice, we are asking for comments on the proposed action so we may refine the proposed action and identify possible alternatives to the proposed action.

    DATES:

    Comments concerning the scope of the proposed action must be received by May 5, 2015. The draft EIS is expected in January 2016 and the final EIS is expected in June 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send or deliver written comments to the Flathead National Forest Supervisor's Office, Attn: Forest Plan Revision, 650 Wolfpack Way, Kalispell, Montana 59901. Comments may also be sent via email to [email protected] or via facsimile to (406) 758-5379. Further instructions for providing comments that will assist the planning team in reviewing comments can be found on the Flathead National Forest Web site www.fs.usda.gov/goto/flathead/fpr.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joe Krueger, Forest Planner, Flathead National Forest, 650 Wolfpack Way, Kalispell, Montana 59901, (406) 758-5243, or at [email protected] Information regarding the Flathead NF plan revision is available on the Forest's Plan Revision Web site at: www.fs.usda.gov/goto/flathead/fpr; information about the amendment is available at www.fs.usda.gov/goto/flathead/gbamend.

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposed Action

    The Forest Service is preparing the Flathead National Forest revised land management plan (forest plan) and an amendment to provide relevant direction from the North Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy into the forest plans for the Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark and Lolo National Forests. The full proposed action for the Flathead National Forest's revised forest plan includes forest-wide, geographic area, and management area desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, and the suitability of lands for specific multiple uses, including, for example, those lands suitable for timber production. The proposed action includes estimates of the long-term sustained yield and planned sale quantity for the forest. The proposed action includes a description of the plan area's distinctive roles and contributions within the broader landscape, the identification of priority restoration watersheds, and suitability of national forest lands to support a variety of proposed and possible actions that may occur on the plan area over the life of the plan. The proposed action also identifies a monitoring program. The proposed action includes 188,206 acres to be recommended to Congress for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System and 22 rivers for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

    Need for Action

    The need for the proposed action is twofold: (1) Significant changes have occurred in conditions and demands since the Flathead's 1986 Forest Plan and (2) to ensure the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms regarding habitat protection across the national forests in the NCDE in support of the de-listing of the grizzly bear. Several areas where changes are needed in the Flathead NF plan were brought to the forefront by the requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule for the National Forest System; findings from the development of the Assessment of the Flathead National Forest (a precursor document in the planning process that identified and evaluated the existing condition across the forest landscape); changes in conditions and demands since the 1986 Forest Plan; and public concerns to date.

    The 2012 Planning Rule, which became effective May 9, 2012, requires inclusion of plan components, including standards or guidelines, that address social and economic sustainability, ecosystem services, and multiple uses integrated with the plan components for ecological sustainability and species diversity. Social and economic management direction is needed to provide people and communities with a range of social and economic benefits for present and future generations. As an example, since approval of the Flathead's 1986 Forest Plan, the role of timber harvest in meeting ecosystem management and social and economic objectives has changed. The 2012 Planning Rule requires the Forest to undertake a process to identify lands within the plan area for timber production suitability, and from this process, the Forest will develop plan components for lands suitable for timber production and for lands where timber harvest is appropriate for purposes other than timber production. To meet the Planning Rule's requirement to provide for ecological sustainability, management direction is needed that addresses ecosystem diversity (including key ecosystem characteristics and their integrity), in light of changes in climate, fuels, vegetation management strategies, and future environmental conditions. Revised plan components are needed that focus on maintaining or restoring vegetation and ecosystems to provide for species diversity including threatened and endangered species, species of conservation concern, and species of public interest. Additionally, comprehensive management direction is needed to address suitability of certain areas for particular uses, address access and sustainable recreation, provide for the management of existing and anticipated uses, as well as protect resources. During the plan revision process, the 2012 Planning Rule requires the Forest Service to undertake processes to identify and evaluate lands that may be suitable for inclusion on the National Wilderness Preservation System and identify eligible rivers for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

    Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, federal agencies are directed to use their authorities to seek to conserve endangered and threatened species. The Canada lynx was listed as a threatened species in 2000. Since that time, the Flathead Forest Plan has been amended with the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (USDA FS 2007), the USFWS designated and updated Canada lynx critical habitat (USDI FWS 2009, 2014), and the Lynx Conservation and Assessment Strategy has been updated (Lynx Biology Team 2013). Thus, the Forest Plan needs to integrate recent and relevant information for Canada lynx to its plan.

    Habitat conditions and management on the Flathead, Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, and Lolo National Forests have contributed importantly to the increased population size and improved status of the grizzly bear across the NCDE. Supporting a healthy, recovered grizzly bear population will depend on continued, effective management of the NCDE grizzly bear's habitat. In 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's announced the availability of a draft Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy for the NCDE population for public review and input. When finalized, the Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy will become the post-delisting management plan for the NCDE grizzly bear population and its habitat. By providing relevant direction from the NCDE Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy into forest plans, the Forest Service will be able to demonstrate to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that adequate regulatory mechanisms exist on national forests within the NCDE to support a delisted grizzly bear population. Under the transition provisions of the 2012 Forest Planning Rule (36 CFR 219.17), an amendment to a plan that was approved or revised under a prior planning regulation, may be initiated under the provisions of the prior planning regulation for 3 years after May 9, 2012, and may be completed and approved under those provisions (36 CFR 219.17 (b)(2)). The proposal is to amend the Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark and Lolo National Forest plans under the 1982 planning regulations in effect prior to November 9, 2000 (see 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, Revised as of July 1, 2000). Thus, under the transition provisions of the 2012 Forest Planning Rule, the Forest Service has the opportunity to carry out the amendments concurrently with the Flathead forest plan revision. The Flathead planning team, in addition to conducting the plan revision, is coordinating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) effort for the amendment with the Kootenai, Lolo, Lewis and Clark and Helena National Forests to ensure that adequate regulatory mechanisms for habitat protections specific to the de-listing of the grizzly bear is consistent on National Forest System lands throughout the NCDE. Finally, public participation through scoping may identify other needs for change that will be considered during the plan revision.

    Public Involvment for the Flathead Plan Revision

    The Flathead National Forest began public participation when developing the Assessment of the Flathead National Forest. To facilitate local participation, the Forest contracted with the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution in 2012 to develop a collaborative stakeholder engagement process. The Institute conducted assessments with Forest Service employees and a representative group of key stakeholders to determine their willingness to engage in a collaborative process convened by a neutral, third party. The Meridian Institute was selected to serve in that capacity and facilitated numerous topical work groups, an interagency group, and meetings to bring together all work groups and interested citizens. Also, as part of the public involvement process, the Forest Service led field trips and held open house sessions to discuss existing information and trends related to a variety of conditions found on the forest. The information acquired from the public involvement process was used to help develop the Flathead NF forest plan revision proposed action.

    Responsible Officials

    The responsible official who will approve the Record of Decision for the Flathead NF revised forest plan is Sharon Labreque, Acting Forest Supervisor for the Flathead National Forest, 650 Wolfpack Way, Kalispell, MT 59901, (406) 758-5208. The responsible officials who will approve the Record of Decision for the Amendment are: William Avey, Forest Supervisor for the Helena and Lewis and Clark National Forests Supervisor's Office, 2880 Skyway Drive, Helena, MT 59602, (406) 449-5201; Christopher S. Savage, Forest Supervisor for the Kootenai National Forest, 31374 U.S. Highway 2, Libby, MT 59923-3022, (406) 293-6211; and Timothy Garcia, Forest Supervisor for the Lolo National Forest, 24 Fort Missoula Road, Missoula, MT 59803, (406) 329-3750.

    Nature of Decision To Be Made

    For the Flathead forest plan revision, the responsible official will decide whether the required plan components (desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines) are sufficient to promote the ecological integrity and sustainability of the Flathead National Forest's ecosystems, watersheds, and diverse plant and animal communities. In addition, the responsible official will decide if the plan provides sufficient management guidance to contribute to social and economic sustainability, to provide people and communities with ecosystem services and multiple uses including a range of social, economic, and ecological benefits for the present and into the future. Standards, guidelines, and other direction related to conservation of threatened and endangered species, (e.g., the Canada lynx, grizzly bear, bull trout, and water howellia) will be evaluated for the Flathead National Forest in the EIS.

    For the amendment component of the proposed action, the responsible officials will decide whether desired conditions, standards, guidelines, and monitoring requirements relevant to national forest grizzly bear habitat management in the NCDE are necessary and appropriate to amend the Helena, Lewis and Clark, Kootenai, and Lolo forest plans. The Kootenai National Forest Plan spans two grizzly bear ecosystems and the Lolo National Forest Plan spans three. The proposed action applies only to the NCDE. No changes in forest plan direction are being considered within the Cabinet-Yaak or Bitterroot recovery areas.

    This proposed action is programmatic in nature and guides future implementation of site-specific projects. Additional NEPA compliance would be required for site-specific projects as part of a two-stage decision making process (Council of Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA; 40 CFR 1508.23, 42 U.S.C. 4322(2)(C)), 36 CFR 219.7(f)).

    Scoping Process

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the EIS. We are seeking your input to continue to develop the Flathead NF revised plan and for NCDE grizzly bear habitat management for the four amendment forests. In addition to requesting comments specific to the Flathead NF proposed action, we are also seeking comments regarding the potential list of species of conservation concern, the identified recommended wilderness acres and eligible wild and scenic rivers, as well as other significant issues.

    The following community meetings are planned to provide additional information and address questions related to the revision and amendment proposed action:

    • March 17, 2015, 5:30-7:30 p.m., Flathead National Forest Supervisors Office, 650 Wolfpack Way, Kalispell, MT 59901.

    • March 19, 2015, 5:30-7:30 p.m., Riverstone Family Lodge, 6370 US Hwy 93N, Eureka, MT 59917.

    • April 7, 2015, 5:30-7:30 p.m., Seeley Lake Community Center, Seely Lake, MT 59868.

    • April 8, 2015, 5:30-7:30 p.m., Fort Missoula Pavilion, Missoula, MT 59804.

    • April 9, 2015, 5:30-7:30 p.m., Superior Ranger Station Conference Room, Superior, MT 59872.

    • April 14, 2015, 5:30-7:30 p.m., Lincoln Community Hall, 404 Main St., Lincoln, MT 59639.

    • April 15, 2015, 5:30-7:30 p.m., Stage Stop Inn, 1005 Main Ave. North, Choteau, MT 59422.

    Changes to the meeting schedule will be communicated on the Flathead Forest Plan revision Web page at www.fs.usda.gov/goto/flathead/fpr, as well as the amendment Web site at www.fs.usda.gov/goto/flathead/gbamend.

    It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action.

    Decision Will Be Subject to Objection

    Only those individuals and entities who have submitted substantive formal comments related to the Flathead NF plan revision and the four amendments during the opportunities provided for public comment (beginning with this NOI), will be eligible to file an objection (36 CFR 219.53(a)). The decision to approve the revised forest plan for the Flathead National Forest and the amendment for the Helena, Lewis and Clark, Kootenai, and Lolo National Forests will be subject to the objection process identified in 36 CFR part 219 subpart B (219.50 to 219.62).

    Documents Available for Review

    The Flathead National Forest plan revision Web site (www.fs.usda.gov/goto/flathead/fpr) provides the full text of the proposed action, describing preliminary desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, and other plan content; the 2014 Assessment; summaries of the public meetings and public meeting materials; and public comments. The forest plan amendment component of the proposed action for the Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, and Lolo National Forests is located at www.fs.usda.gov/goto/flathead/gbamend, which can be linked from the individual Forest's Web sites as well. The material available on these sites may be updated or revised at any time as part of the planning process.

    The 2012 Planning Rule is explained in more detail on the Forest Service's Web site at http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/planningrule/home/?cid=stelprdb5359471. The draft NCDE Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy is currently available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Web site at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/continentalindex.html.

    Dated: February 26, 2015. Sharon Labreque, Acting Forest Supervisor, Flathead NF.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05054 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Forest Resource Coordinating Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Forest Resource Coordinating Committee (Committee) will meet via teleconference. The Committee is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. II), and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the Act) (Pub. L. 110-246). Additional information concerning the Committee, including the meeting agenda, supporting documents and minutes, can be found by visiting the Committee's Web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/frcc/.

    DATES:

    The teleconference will be held on March 17, 2015 from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST). The meeting is subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via teleconference. For anyone who would like to attend the teleconference, please visit the Web site listed in the SUMMARY section or contact Andrea Bedell-Loucks at [email protected] for further details. Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments placed on the Committee's Web site listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrea Bedell-Loucks, Designated Federal Officer, Cooperative Forestry staff, 202-205-1190. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Finalize April meeting agenda—topics, presentations and logisitics, and

    2. National Association of Conservation Districts presentation on their national survey results.

    The teleconference is open to the public. However, the public is strongly encouraged to RSVP prior to the teleconference to ensure all related documents are shared with public meeting participants. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing 10 days before the planned meeting to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Laurie Schoonhoven, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop 1123, Washington, DC 20250 or by email to [email protected] A summary of the meeting will be posted on the Web site listed above within 21 days after the meeting.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: March 2, 2015. Patti Hirami, Assistant Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05195 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2015-0003] Notice of Request for a New Information Collection: Gathering Sessions for Safe Food Handling Instructions AGENCY:

    Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing its intention to request a new information collection for a survey of consumers about safe food handling instructions.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before May 5, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this information collection. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: This Web site provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field or attach a file for lengthier comments. Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions at that site for submitting comments.

    Mail, including CD-ROMs, etc.: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Docket Clerk, Patriots Plaza 3, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop 3782, Room 8-163A, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    Hand- or courier-delivered submittals: Deliver to Patriots Plaza 3, 355 E Street SW., Room 8-163A, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    Instructions: All items submitted by mail or electronic mail must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2014-0003. Comments received in response to this docket will be made available for public inspection and posted without change, including any personal information, to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Docket: For access to hard copies of background documents or comments received, you can visit the FSIS Docket Room at Patriots Plaza 3, 355 E Street SW., Room 8-164, Washington, DC 20250-3700 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lee W. Puricelli, Program Analyst, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 6073, South Building, Washington, DC 20250.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Safe Food Handling Instructions Survey.

    Type of Request: New information collection.

    Abstract: The Food Safety and Inspection Service has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary of Agriculture (7 CFR 2.18, 2.53) as specified in the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 453 et. seq., 601 et seq.). FSIS protects the public by verifying that meat and poultry products are wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and packaged.

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service's Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Education (USDA, FSIS, OPACE) ensures that all segments of the farm-to-table chain receive valuable food safety information. The consumer education programs developed by OPACE's Food Safety Education Staff informs the public on how to safely handle, prepare, and store meat, poultry, and egg products to minimize incidence of foodborne illness.

    Safe-handling instructions are required on a product if the product's meat or poultry component is raw or partially cooked (i.e., not considered ready-to-eat) and if the product is destined for household consumers or institutional uses (9 CFR 317.2(l) [meat]; 9 CFR 381.125(b) [poultry]). FSIS conducted consumer focus groups to inform the design of the current safe-handling instructions in the regulations. Since the final safe handling rule became effective in 1994, the safe-handling instructions have not been revised.

    In response to inquiries from consumer groups and other stakeholders for more information about potential changes to the safe-handling instructions regulations, FSIS sent a letter, in November 2013, to consumer groups, industry groups and academia posing questions about the current safe-handling instructions and how to revise them. The stakeholder comments supported the need for consumer testing of any changes to safe-handling instructions. FSIS presented a summary of the stakeholders suggestions to the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI) in January 2014.

    The feedback FSIS received from the NACMPI meeting echoed the stakeholders' emphasis of the necessity for consumer testing. In addition, NACMPI recommended that FSIS should consider requiring crucial endpoint temperatures on the label. The current safe-handling instructions use “Cook Thoroughly” as a simple, single statement appropriate to all products. This statement was used because, at the time of development, product label size limitations and many varying endpoint temperatures prevented an easy to understand label with endpoint cooking temperatures. Instead of multiple endpoint temperatures, FSIS now recommends only three internal minimal temperatures: one for all poultry (165 °F), one for ground red meat (160 °F), and one for all whole-muscle red meat (145 °F and hold for 3 minutes). With only three temperature recommendations, the endpoint temperature information could be more easily incorporated into the safe-handling instructions through rulemaking than when the current instructions were finalized in 1994. Other possible changes to the safe-handling instructions might include incorporating new icons developed and branded under USDA's Food Safe Families campaign and providing a Web link or phone number for more information on food safety.

    The NACMPI Subcommittee on Food Handling Labels recommended that FSIS pursue changes in the existing safe-handling instructions in the regulations and conduct consumer testing to determine the effectiveness of any revisions to the instructions.

    To inform decisions about possible modifications to the safe-handling instructions, FSIS is requesting approval for a new information collection to conduct consumer focus groups. These focus groups will help FSIS understand what information in the instructions could better enable consumers to safely handle and prepare raw and partially cooked meat and poultry at home.

    FSIS has contracted with RTI International to conduct six consumer focus groups to gather information on consumers' understanding and use of the current safe-handling instructions and responses to possible revisions to the instructions. To provide geographic diversity, FSIS will conduct two focus groups in three different geographic locations each with two focus groups (for a total of six). Locations will be representative of three of the four main geographical areas of the country (East Coast, South, Midwest, and West Coast). In each location, FSIS will conduct one focus group with English-speaking adults and one focus group with Spanish-speaking adults. The focus groups will include individuals at-risk for foodborne illness (i.e., older adults, parents of young children, immunocompromised individuals or their caregivers) as well as from the general population as seen in Table 1.

    Table 1—Focus Group Subpopulations Group Subpopulation Language 1 Parents of young children a Spanish 2 Immunocompromised b English 3 Older adults c Spanish 4 General population/less educated d English 5 General population/less educated d Spanish 6 Parents of young children a e English a Parents/caregivers of children aged 5 years old and younger, including pregnant women. b Adults diagnosed with cancer, diabetes, or a condition that weakens the immune system or their adult caregiver. c Adults aged 60 years or older. d Adults aged 26 to 59 years old with a high school education or less. e Adults with a college degree or higher.

    Estimate of Burden: FSIS plans to screen 480 individuals to obtain no more than 60 focus group participants (10 participants per group). Each screening is expected to take 8 minutes (0.133 hour), and each focus group discussion is expected to last 1.45 hours. Before and after each group, participants will be asked to complete a short survey; each survey will take about 3 minutes (0.05 hour) to complete.

    Respondents: Consumers.

    Estimated No. of Respondents: 480.

    Estimated No. of Annual Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 157 hours.

    Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence, SW., Room 6077, South Building, Washington, DC 20250, (202)690-6510.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS's estimate of the burden 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, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to both FSIS, at the addresses provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253.

    Responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    USDA Nondiscrimination Statement

    No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

    How to File a Complaint of Discrimination

    To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which is available online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

    Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

    Mail

    U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410.

    Fax

    (202) 690-7442.

    Email

    [email protected]

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    Additional Public Notification

    Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

    FSIS also will make this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe.

    Done at Washington, DC, on: March 3, 2015. Alfred V. Almanza, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05334 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request March 2, 2015.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques and other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by April 6, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commentors are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Forest Service

    Title: Good Neighbor Agreements with State Cooperators.

    OMB Control Number: 0596—NEW.

    Summary of Collection: The Forest Service (FS) is authorized under the Agricultural Act of 2014, Public Law 113-79 section 8206 and the amendment to the original Colorado version of the Good Neighbor Authority in the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2014, Public Law 113-76 section 417 to perform specific activities in cooperation with State partners. These authorities encourage the FS to enter into Good Neighbor Agreements with the States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and State Forestry Agencies to carry out authorized forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration and protective services when similar and complementary projects are being performed on adjacent State or private lands, and on and off National Forest System (NFS) lands. http://www.fs.fed.us/farmbill/gna.shtml. The FS will maintain its land management responsibilities for all projects that take place on NFS lands.

    Need and Use of the Information: Good Neighbor Agreements are considered cooperative agreements which permit the FS to work collaboratively with willing State agencies. FS will use a combination of agreement templates and federal financial assistance forms. Required information will be collected in the agreements, project type, project scope, financial plan, statement of work, standard supporting documentation for the activity, and cooperator's business information. Without the collected information the FS would not be able to create, develop, and administer the Good Neighbor Agreements. The Agency would be unable to develop or monitor projects, make payments, or identify financial and accounting errors.

    Description of Respondents: States and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

    Number of Respondents: 51.

    Frequency of Responses: One time.

    Total Burden Hours: 200.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05266 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Kansas Advisory Committee To Hear Testimony on Seclusion and Restraint of Children With Disabilities in Kansas Schools AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Kansas Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Wednesday, March 25, 2015, at 12:00 p.m. CST for the purpose of hearing testimony from a balanced panel of interested parties on seclusion and restraint of children with disabilities in Kansas schools. An open session will be available at the end of the meeting for members of the public who call in to make a statement.

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-572-7033, conference ID: 8127019. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Member of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by April 25, 2015. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Administrative Assistant, Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Kansas Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Introductions
    12:00 p.m. to 12:05 p.m.—Elizabeth Kronk Warner, Chair Panel Testimony on Seclusion and Restraint in Kansas schools 12:05 p.m. to 1:15 p.m. Open Session 1:15 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Adjournment 1:30 p.m. DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 25, 2015, at 12:00 p.m.

    Public Call Information:

    Dial: 888-572-7033.

    Conference ID: 8127019.

    Dated: March 2, 2015. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05167 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XC598 Endangered and Threatened Species; Availability of the Final Recovery Plan for Staghorn and Elkhorn Corals AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the adoption of a Final Endangered Species Act recovery plan for elkhorn coral and staghorn coral. The Final Recovery Plan (Plan) for Elkhorn Coral (Acropora palmata) and Staghorn Coral (Acropora cervicornis) is now available.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic copies of the Plan are available on the NMFS Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans.htm and on the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_resources/coral/.

    A copy of the Plan can be obtained by writing to: Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, Attn: Acropora Recovery Plan.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alison Moulding (727-824-5312), email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires NMFS to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of threatened and endangered species, unless it is determined that such plans would not result in the conservation of the species. NMFS designated elkhorn and staghorn corals as “threatened” under the ESA in May 2006. In September 2014, NMFS published a final rule maintaining the status of elkhorn and staghorn corals as threatened species. NMFS published a Notice of Availability and requested public comments on the Draft Recovery Plan for Elkhorn Coral and Staghorn Coral (Draft Plan) in the Federal Register on September 5, 2014. We revised the Draft Plan based on the comments received, and this final version now constitutes the Recovery Plan for Elkhorn Coral (Acropora palmata) and Staghorn Coral (Acropora cervicornis).

    The Final Plan

    Recovery plans describe actions beneficial for the conservation and recovery of species listed under the ESA. Section 4(f)(1) of the ESA requires that recovery plans incorporate, to the maximum extent practicable: (1) Objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination that the species is no longer threatened or endangered; (2) site-specific management actions necessary to achieve the Plan's goals; and (3) estimates of the time required and costs to implement recovery actions. The ESA requires the development of recovery plans for each listed species unless a recovery plan would not promote a species' conservation.

    The purpose of the Plan is to rebuild and assure the long-term viability of elkhorn and staghorn coral populations in the wild, allowing ultimately for the species' removal from the federal list of endangered and threatened species. The goal of the Plan is to increase the abundance and to protect the genetic diversity of elkhorn and staghorn coral populations throughout their geographical ranges while sufficiently abating threats to warrant delisting of both species. Elkhorn and staghorn coral populations should be large enough to include numerous groups of successfully reproducing individuals, including thickets, across the historical range of these species. These groups should be large enough to protect genetic diversity and maintain ecosystem function. The recovery approach includes research and monitoring to identify, reduce, or eliminate threats so the recovery objectives outlined in the Plan have the greatest likelihood of being achieved. Because some threats to elkhorn and staghorn corals cannot be directly managed (e.g., disease), the Plan pursues concurrent actions to address both global and local threats. Population enhancement is also an integral part of elkhorn and staghorn recovery through restoration, restocking, and active management. Ecosystem-level actions are identified to improve habitat quality and restore community structure and ecological functions, such as herbivory, to sustain adult colonies and enable successful recruitment in the wild over the long term. The goal, objectives, and criteria of the Plan represent NMFS' expectation of conditions to recover elkhorn and staghorn corals so they no longer need the protective measures provided by the ESA.

    The recovery criteria in the Plan are based on the current literature and expert consensus. In some cases, the current best available information is so limited that it is not practicable to identify recovery criteria. Instead, interim criteria are identified to gather and obtain the information necessary to establish final recovery criteria. Recovery criteria can be viewed as targets, or values, by which progress toward achievement of recovery objectives can be measured. In the Plan we frame recovery criteria both in terms of population parameters (Population-based Recovery Criteria) and the five ESA listing factors (Threat-based Recovery Criteria). The Plan also includes the projected timeframe to recover elkhorn and staghorn corals and the cost of implementing actions.

    Conclusion

    NMFS has reviewed the Plan for compliance with the requirements of ESA section 4(f), determined that it does incorporate the required elements, and is therefore adopting it as the Final Recovery Plan for elkhorn and staghorn corals.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

    Dated: March 3, 2015. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05192 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Submission of Conservation Efforts To Make Listings Unnecessary Under the Endangered Species Act AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 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 5, 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 Marta Nammack, (301) 427-8469 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    On March 28, 2003, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Services) announced a final policy on the criteria the Services will use to evaluate conservation efforts by states and other non-Federal entities (68 FR 15100). The Services take these efforts into account when making decisions on whether to list a species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The efforts usually involve the development of a conservation plan or agreement, procedures for monitoring the effectiveness of the plan or agreement, and an annual report.

    II. Method of Collection

    NMFS does not require, but will accept, plans and reports electronically. NMFS has not developed a form to be used for submission of plans or reports. In the past, NMFS has made plans and annual reports from states available through the Internet and plans to continue this practice.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0466.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; State, local or tribal governments.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3.

    Estimated Time Per Response: 2,500 hours to complete each agreement or plan that has the intention of making listing unnecessary; 320 hours to conduct monitoring for successful agreements; and 80 hours to prepare a report for successful agreements.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,300.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $150 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    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: March 3, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05230 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-840] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from India. The review covers 211 producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise. The Department selected two mandatory respondents for individual examination, Devi Fisheries Limited (Devi Fisheries) 1 and Falcon Marine Exports Limited and its affiliate K.R. Enterprises (collectively, Falcon). The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2013, through January 31, 2014. We preliminarily determine that sales to the United States have been made below normal value and, therefore, are subject to antidumping duties. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We invite all interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.

    1 The Department collapsed Devi Fisheries, Satya Seafoods Private Limited and Usha Seafoods during the 2011-2012 administrative review. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012, 78 FR 15691 (March 12, 2013), unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final No Shipment Determination; 2011-2012, 78 FR 42492 (July 16, 2013).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: March 6, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephen Banea or Blaine Wiltse, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0656, or (202) 482-6345, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is certain frozen warmwater shrimp.2 The product is currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.

    2 For a complete description of the Scope of the Order, see the memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, entitled, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the 2013-2014 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India” (dated concurrently with these results) (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice.

    Methodology

    The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.

    For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).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 Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as the Appendix to this notice.

    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 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 in the Department's regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014).

    Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that weighted-average dumping margins exist for the respondents for the period February 1, 2013, through January 31, 2014, as follows:

    Manufacturer/exporter Percent
  • margin
  • Devi Fisheries Limited/Satya Seafoods Private Limited/Usha Seafoods 4 3.28 Falcon Marine Exports Limited/K.R. Enterprises 2.63

    Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: 5

    4 In the Initiation Notice, Satya Seafoods Private Limited (Satya) and Usha Seafoods (Usha) were inadvertently listed both as part of Devi Fisheries Limited and as separate companies. The Department collapsed Devi Fisheries, Satya, and Usha during the 2011-2012 administrative review. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012, 78 FR 15691 (March 12, 2013), unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final No Shipment Determination; 2011-2012, 78 FR 42492 (July 16, 2013). See also Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India and Thailand: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 79 FR 18510 (April 2, 2014) (Initiation Notice). We hereby clarify that we are reviewing these companies as part of the Devi Fisheries Group, and we hereinafter refer to the Devi Fisheries Group as Devi Fisheries.

    5 This rate is based on the simple average of the margins calculated for those companies selected for individual review. Because we cannot apply our normal methodology of calculating a weighted-average margin due to requests to protect business proprietary information, we find this rate to be the best proxy of the actual weighted-average margin determined for the mandatory respondents. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 53661, 53663 (September 1, 2010); see also the memorandum from Blaine Wiltse, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, to the file, entitled, “Calculation of the Review-Specific Average Rate in the 2013-2014 Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India” (dated concurrently with these results).

    Manufacturer/exporter Percent
  • margin
  • Abad Fisheries 2.96 Accelerated Freeze-Drying Co 2.96 Adilakshmi Enterprises 2.96 Akshay Food Impex Private Limited 2.96 Allana Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Allanasons Ltd 2.96 AMI Enterprises 2.96 Amulya Seafoods 2.96 Anand Aqua Exports 2.96 Ananda Aqua Applications/Ananda Aqua Exports (P) Limited/Ananda Foods 2.96 Ananda Enterprises (India) Private Limited 2.96 Andaman Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Angelique Intl 2.96 Anjaneya Seafoods 2.96 Apex Frozen Foods Private Limited 2.96 Arvi Import & Export 2.96 Asvini Exports 2.96 Asvini Fisheries Private Limited 2.96 Avanti Feeds Limited 2.96 Ayshwarya Seafood Private Limited 2.96 Baby Marine Exports 2.96 Baby Marine International 2.96 Baby Marine Sarass 2.96 Balasore Marine Exports Private Limited 2.96 Bhatsons Aquatic Products 2.96 Bhavani Seafoods 2.96 Bijaya Marine Products 2.96 Blue Fin Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Blue Water Foods & Exports P. Ltd 2.96 Bluefin Enterprises 2.96 Bluepark Seafoods Private Ltd 2.96 BMR Exports 2.96 Britto Exports 2.96 C P Aquaculture (India) Ltd 2.96 Calcutta Seafoods Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Canaan Marine Products 2.96 Capithan Exporting Co 2.96 Castlerock Fisheries Ltd 2.96 Chemmeens (Regd) 2.96 Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div.) 2.96 Choice Canning Company 2.96 Choice Trading Corporation Private Limited 2.96 Coastal Aqua 2.96 Coastal Corporation Ltd 2.96 Cochin Frozen Food Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Coreline Exports 2.96 Corlim Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.96 D2 D Logistics Private Limited 2.96 Damco India Private Limited 2.96 Delsea Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Devi Marine Food Exports Private Ltd./Kader Exports Private Limited/Kader Investment and Trading Company Private Limited/Liberty Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd./Liberty Oil Mills Ltd./Premier Marine Products Private Limited/ 6 Universal Cold Storage Private Limited 2.96 Devi Sea Foods Limited 7 2.96 Diamond Seafood Exports/Edhayam Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd./Kadalkanny Frozen Foods/Theva & Company 2.96 Digha Seafood Exports 2.96 Esmario Export Enterprises 2.96 Exporter Coreline Exports 2.96 Five Star Marine Exports Private Limited 2.96 Forstar Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Frontline Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.96 G A Randerian Ltd 2.96 Gadre Marine Exports 2.96 Galaxy Maritech Exports P. Ltd 2.96 Gayatri Seafoods 2.96 Geo Aquatic Products (P) Ltd 2.96 Geo Seafoods 2.96 Goodwill Enterprises 2.96 Grandtrust Overseas (P) Ltd 2.96 GVR Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Haripriya Marine Export Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Harmony Spices Pvt. Ltd 2.96 HIC ABF Special Foods Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Hindustan Lever, Ltd 2.96 Hiravata Ice & Cold Storage 2.96 Hiravati Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Hiravati International P. Ltd. (located at APM—Mafco Yard, Sector—18, Vashi, Navi, Mumbai—400 705, India) 2.96 Hiravati International Pvt. Ltd. (located at Jawar Naka, Porbandar, Gujarat, 360 575, India) 2.96 IFB Agro Industries Ltd 2.96 Indian Aquatic Products 2.96 Indo Aquatics 2.96 Innovative Foods Limited 2.96 International Freezefish Exports 2.96 Interseas 2.96 ITC Limited, International Business 2.96 ITC Ltd 2.96 Jagadeesh Marine Exports 2.96 Jaya Satya Marine Exports 2.96 Jaya Satya Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Jayalakshmi Sea Foods Private Limited 2.96 Jinny Marine Traders 2.96 Jiya Packagings 2.96 K R M Marine Exports Ltd 2.96 K V Marine Exports 2.96 Kalyan Aqua & Marine Exports India Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Kalyanee Marine 2.96 Kanch Ghar 2.96 Kay Kay Exports 2.96 Kings Marine Products 2.96 KNC Agro Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Koluthara Exports Ltd 2.96 Konark Aquatics & Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Landauer Ltd 2.96 Libran Cold Storages (P) Ltd 2.96 Lighthouse Trade Links Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Magnum Estates Limited 2.96 Magnum Export 2.96 Magnum Sea Foods Limited 2.96 Malabar Arabian Fisheries 2.96 Malnad Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Mangala Marine Exim India Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Mangala Sea Products 2.96 Mangala Seafoods 2.96 Meenaxi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd 2.96 MSC Marine Exporters 2.96 MSRDR Exports 2.96 Munnangi Sea Foods (Pvt) Ltd. 8 2.96 MTR Foods 2.96 N.C. John & Sons (P) Ltd 2.96 Naga Hanuman Fish Packers 2.96 Naik Frozen Foods Private Limited 2.96 Naik Seafoods Ltd 2.96 Navayuga Exports 2.96 Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited 2.96 Nezami Rekha Sea Food Private Limited 2.96 NGR Aqua International 2.96 Nila Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Nine Up Frozen Foods 2.96 Nutrient Marine Foods Limited 2.96 Overseas Marine Export 2.96 Paragon Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Parayil Food Products Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Penver Products Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Pesca Marine Products Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Pijikay International Exports P Ltd 2.96 Pisces Seafood International 2.96 Premier Exports International 2.96 Premier Marine Foods 2.96 Premier Seafoods Exim (P) Ltd 2.96 R V R Marine Products Limited 2.96 Raa Systems Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Raju Exports 2.96 Ram's Assorted Cold Storage Ltd 2.96 Raunaq Ice & Cold Storage 2.96 Raysons Aquatics Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Razban Seafoods Ltd 2.96 RBT Exports 2.96 RDR Exports 2.96 Riviera Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Rohi Marine Private Ltd 2.96 S & S Seafoods 2.96 S. A. Exports 2.96 S Chanchala Combines 2.96 Safa Enterprises 2.96 Sagar Foods 2.96 Sagar Grandhi Exports Private Limited 2.96 Sagar Samrat Seafoods 2.96 Sagarvihar Fisheries Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Sai Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Sai Seafoods 2.96 Sanchita Marine Products Private Limited 2.96 Sandhya Aqua Exports 2.96 Sandhya Aqua Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Sandhya Marines Limited 2.96 Santhi Fisheries & Exports Ltd 2.96 Sarveshwari Exports 2.96 Sawant Food Products 2.96 Sea Foods Private Limited 2.96 Seagold Overseas Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Selvam Exports Private Limited 2.96 Sharat Industries Ltd 2.96 Shimpo Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Shippers Exports 2.96 Shiva Frozen Food Exp. Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Shree Datt Aquaculture Farms Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Shroff Processed Food & Cold Storage P Ltd 2.96 Silver Seafood 2.96 Sita Marine Exports 2.96 Sowmya Agri Marine Exports 2.96 Sprint Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Sri Chandrakantha Marine Exports 2.96 Sri Sakkthi Cold Storage 2.96 Sri Sakthi Marine Products P Ltd 2.96 Sri Satya Marine Exports 2.96 Sri Venkata Padmavathi Marine Foods Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Srikanth International 2.96 SSF Ltd 2.96 Star Agro Marine Exports Private Limited 2.96 Star Organic Foods Incorporated 2.96 Sun-Bio Technology Ltd 2.96 Supran Exim Private Limited 2.96 Suryamitra Exim Pvt. Ltd 2.96 Suvarna Rekha Exports Private Limited 2.96 Suvarna Rekha Marines P Ltd 2.96 TBR Exports Pvt Ltd 2.96 Teekay Marine P. Ltd 2.96 Tejaswani Enterprises 2.96 The Waterbase Ltd 2.96 Triveni Fisheries P Ltd 2.96 Uniloids Biosciences Private Limited 2.96 Uniroyal Marine Exports Ltd 2.96 Unitriveni Overseas 2.96 V.S Exim Pvt Ltd 2.96 Vasista Marine 2.96 Veejay Impex 2.96 Victoria Marine & Agro Exports Ltd 2.96 Vinner Marine 2.96 Vishal Exports 2.96 Wellcome Fisheries Limited 2.96 West Coast Frozen Foods Private Limited 2.96 Z A Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd 2.96
    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice.9 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.10 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit witheach argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.11 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS.12

    6 On December 2, 2014, Premier Marine Products Private Limited was found to be the successor-in-interest to Premier Marine Products. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India, 79 FR 71384 (December 2, 2014).

    7 Shrimp produced and exported by Devi Sea Foods (Devi) was excluded from this order effective February 1, 2009. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Notice of Revocation of Order in Part, 75 FR 41813, 41814 (July 19, 2010). However, shrimp produced by other Indian producers and exported by Devi remain subject to the order. Thus, this administrative review with respect to Devi covers only shrimp which was produced in India by other companies and exported by Devi.

    8 In the Initiation Notice, we inadvertently omitted one company, Munnangi Sea Foods (Pvt) Ltd., for which a timely review request was received with respect to the current review. Accordingly, as a correction to the Initiation Notice, this company was included in the Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 79 FR 24398 (April 30, 2014).

    9See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    10See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    11See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    12See 19 CFR 351.303.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.13 Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    13See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because Devi Fisheries and Falcon reported the entered value for all of their U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the sales for which entered value was reported. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we have calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the entered value.

    For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we will calculate an assessment rate based on the average 14 of the cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected for mandatory review (i.e., Devi Fisheries and Falcon) excluding any which are de minimis or determined entirely on adverse facts available.

    14 Calculated as discussed in footnote 5 above.

    The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Devi Fisheries or Falcon for which these companies did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 10.17 percent, the all-others rate made effective by the LTFV investigation.15 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    15See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India, 70 FR 5147, 5148 (February 1, 2005).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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.

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 2, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. Discussion of the Methodology a. Normal Value Comparisons b. Determination of Comparison Method c. Product Comparisons d. Export Price e. Normal Value 5. Currency Conversion 6. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-05289 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD796 Schedules for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public workshops; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    Free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in April, May, and June of 2015. Also, due to inclement weather, NMFS cancelled the Atlantic Shark Identification workshop scheduled for February 26, 2015, in Norfolk, VA. NMFS has rescheduled this workshop to March 26, 2015, to be held at the same time and location, 12 p.m. to 4 p.m., LaQuinta Inn & Suites, 1387 North Military Highway, Norfolk, VA 23502. Certain fishermen and shark dealers are required to attend a workshop to meet regulatory requirements and to maintain valid permits. Specifically, the Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop is mandatory for all federally permitted Atlantic shark dealers. The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop is mandatory for vessel owners and operators who use bottom longline, pelagic longline, or gillnet gear, and who have also been issued shark or swordfish limited access permits. Additional free workshops will be conducted during 2015 and will be announced in a future notice.

    DATES:

    The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held on April 9, May 7, and June 3, 2015. The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop scheduled for February 26, 2015, has been rescheduled to March 26, 2015. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further details.

    The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held on April 13, April 28, May 19, May 27, June 23, and June 26, 2015.

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further details.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held in Wilmington, NC; Bohemia, NY; and Manahawkin, NJ. The rescheduled workshop will be held in Norfolk, VA.

    The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in Port St. Lucie, FL; Kenner, LA; Charleston, SC, Manahawkin, NJ; Revere, MA; and Ocean City, MD.

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further details on workshop locations.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Pearson by phone: (727) 824-5399, or by fax: (727) 824-5398.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The workshop schedules, registration information, and a list of frequently asked questions regarding these workshops are posted on the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/workshops/.

    Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops

    Since January 1, 2008, Atlantic shark dealers have been prohibited from receiving, purchasing, trading, or bartering for Atlantic sharks unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate is on the premises of each business listed under the shark dealer permit that first receives Atlantic sharks (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). Dealers who attend and successfully complete a workshop are issued a certificate for each place of business that is permitted to receive sharks. These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. Approximately 107 free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops have been conducted since January 2007.

    Currently, permitted dealers may send a proxy to an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop. However, if a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer must designate a proxy for each place of business covered by the dealer's permit which first receives Atlantic sharks. Only one certificate will be issued to each proxy. A proxy must be a person who is currently employed by a place of business covered by the dealer's permit; is a primary participant in the identification, weighing, and/or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and who fills out dealer reports. Atlantic shark dealers are prohibited from renewing a Federal shark dealer permit unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate for each business location that first receives Atlantic sharks has been submitted with the permit renewal application. Additionally, trucks or other conveyances that are extensions of a dealer's place of business must possess a copy of a valid dealer or proxy Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate.

    Workshop Dates, Times, and Locations

    1. April 9, 2015, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., Hampton Inn, 124 Old Eastwood Road, Wilmington, NC 28403.

    2. May 7, 2015, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., LaQuinta Inn & Suites, 10 Aero Road, Bohemia, NY 11706.

    3. June 3, 2015, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., Holiday Inn, 151 Route 72 East, Manahawkin, NJ 08050.

    Registration

    To register for a scheduled Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, please contact Eric Sander at [email protected] or at (386) 852-8588.

    Registration Materials

    To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items to the workshop:

    • Atlantic shark dealer permit holders must bring proof that the attendee is an owner or agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable permit, and proof of identification.

    • Atlantic shark dealer proxies must bring documentation from the permitted dealer acknowledging that the proxy is attending the workshop on behalf of the permitted Atlantic shark dealer for a specific business location, a copy of the appropriate valid permit, and proof of identification.

    Workshop Objectives

    The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops are designed to reduce the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks reported in the dealer reporting form and increase the accuracy of species-specific dealer-reported information. Reducing the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks will improve quota monitoring and the data used in stock assessments. These workshops will train shark dealer permit holders or their proxies to properly identify Atlantic shark carcasses.

    Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops

    Since January 1, 2007, shark limited-access and swordfish limited-access permit holders who fish with longline or gillnet gear have been required to submit a copy of their Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop certificate in order to renew either permit (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. As such, vessel owners who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel owners whose certificate(s) will expire prior to the next permit renewal, must attend a workshop to fish with, or renew, their swordfish and shark limited-access permits. Additionally, new shark and swordfish limited-access permit applicants who intend to fish with longline or gillnet gear must attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and submit a copy of their workshop certificate before either of the permits will be issued. Approximately 202 free Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops have been conducted since 2006.

    In addition to certifying vessel owners, at least one operator on board vessels issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit that uses longline or gillnet gear is required to attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and receive a certificate. Vessels that have been issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit and that use longline or gillnet gear may not fish unless both the vessel owner and operator have valid workshop certificates onboard at all times. Vessel operators who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel operators whose certificate(s) will expire prior to their next fishing trip, must attend a workshop to operate a vessel with swordfish and shark limited-access permits that uses longline or gillnet gear.

    Workshop Dates, Times, and Locations

    1. April 13, 2015, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 10120 South Federal Highway, Port St. Lucie, FL 34952.

    2. April 28, 2015, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Inn, 901 Airline Drive Kenner, LA 70062.

    3. May 19, 2015, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hampton Inn, 678 Citadel Haven Drive, Charleston, SC 29414.

    4. May 27, 2015, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 151 Route 72 East, Manahawkin, NJ 08050.

    5. June 23, 2015, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hampton Inn, 230 Lee Burbank Highway Revere, MA 02151.

    6. June 26, 2015, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Princess Royale Hotel, 9100 Coastal Highway, Ocean City, MD 21842.

    Registration

    To register for a scheduled Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop, please contact Angler Conservation Education at (386) 682-0158.

    Registration Materials

    To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items with them to the workshop:

    • Individual vessel owners must bring a copy of the appropriate swordfish and/or shark permit(s), a copy of the vessel registration or documentation, and proof of identification.

    • Representatives of a business-owned or co-owned vessel must bring proof that the individual is an agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable swordfish and/or shark permit(s), and proof of identification.

    • Vessel operators must bring proof of identification.

    Workshop Objectives

    The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops are designed to teach longline and gillnet fishermen the required techniques for the safe handling and release of entangled and/or hooked protected species, such as sea turtles, marine mammals, and smalltooth sawfish. In an effort to improve reporting, the proper identification of protected species will also be taught at these workshops. Additionally, individuals attending these workshops will gain a better understanding of the requirements for participating in these fisheries. The overall goal of these workshops is to provide participants with the skills needed to reduce the mortality of protected species, which may prevent additional regulations on these fisheries in the future.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of December 4, 2014, (79 FR 71982) in FR Doc. 2014-28502, on page 71983, in the second column, the workshop date of the second Atlantic Shark Identification workshop listed under the heading “Workshop Dates, Times, and Locations” is corrected to read as follows:

    Workshop Dates, Times, and Locations

    2. March 26, 2015, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., LaQuinta Inn & Suites, 1387 North Military Highway, Norfolk, VA 23502.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 2, 2015. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05174 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; List of Gear by Fisheries and Fishery Management Council AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 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 5, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 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 Chris Wright, (301) 427-8570 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    This request is for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Under the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) [16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.], as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act [Pub. L. 104-297], the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) is required to publish a list of all fisheries under authority of each Regional Fishery Management Council (Council) and all such fishing gear used in such fisheries (see section 305(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act). The list has been published and appears in 50 CFR 600.725(v). Any person wishing to use gear not on the list, or engage in a fishery not on the list, must provide the appropriate Council or the Secretary, in the case of Atlantic highly migratory species, with 90 days of advance notice. If the Secretary takes no action to prohibit such a fishery or use of such a gear, the person may proceed.

    II. Method of Collection

    The respondent provides written notice. No form is used.

    III. Data

    OMB Number: 0648-0346.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 6.

    Estimated Time per Response: 90 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 15.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $30.00.

    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: March 3, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05229 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 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 Groundfish Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Thursday, March 26, 2015, at 9 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the DoubleTree by Hilton, 363 Maine Mall Road, South Portland, ME 04106; telephone: (207) 775-6161; fax: (207) 756-6622.

    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 items of discussion on the agenda are:

    The committee will discuss and make recommendations to the Council regarding Amendment 18 (A18) (fleet diversity and accumulation limits). They will review the Alternatives included in A18, and review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for A18 including impacts analysis. The committee will also review the Groundfish Advisory Panel's recommendations regarding A18. They will potentially recommend preferred alternatives and approval of the DEIS to the Council. The committee will receive an overview of the Council's Groundfish priorities for 2015. They will also 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

    The 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: March 2, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05177 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Scientific Research, Exempted Fishing, and Exempted Activity Submissions AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 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 5, 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 Jason Blackburn, (301) 427-8555 or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a current information collection.

    Fishery regulations do not generally affect scientific research activities conducted by a scientific research vessel. Persons planning to conduct such research are encouraged to submit a scientific research plan to ensure that the activities are considered research and not fishing. The researchers are requested to submit reports of their scientific research activity after its completion. Eligible researchers on board federally permitted fishing vessels that plan to temporarily possess fish in a manner not compliant with applicable fishing regulations for the purpose of collecting scientific data on catch may submit a request for a temporary possession letter of authorization. The researchers are requested to submit reports of their scientific research activity after its completion. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) may also grant exemptions from fishery regulations for educational or other activities (e.g., using non-regulation gear). The applications for these exemptions must be submitted, as well as reports on activities.

    II. Method of Collection

    Information may be submitted on paper or electronically, and in some cases by telephone.

    III. Data

    OMB Number: 0648-0309.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; individuals or households; not for profit organizations; state, local or tribal governments.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 143.

    Estimated Time per Response: Scientific research plans, 9 hours; scientific research reports, 4 hours; exempted fishing permit requests, 89 hours; exempted fishing permit reports, 15 hours; exempted educational requests, 4 hours; exempted educational reports, 2 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 7,753.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $452.

    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: March 3, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05228 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 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 Groundfish 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 25, 2015, at 9 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the DoubleTree by Hilton, 363 Maine Mall Road, South Portland, ME 04106; telephone: (207) 775-6161; fax: (207) 756-6622.

    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 items of discussion on the agenda are:

    The panel will discuss and make recommendations to the Groundfish Committee regarding Amendment 18 (A18) (fleet diversity and accumulation limits). They will review the Alternatives included in A18, and review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for A18 including impacts analysis. The panel will receive an overview of the Council's Groundfish priorities for 2015. They will also 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 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 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: March 2, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05176 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-84-2014] Authorization of Production Activity; Foreign-Trade Zone 82; MH Wirth, Inc. (Offshore Drilling Riser Systems); Theodore, Alabama

    On November 3, 2014, the City of Mobile, Alabama, grantee of FTZ 82, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on behalf of MH Wirth, Inc., within FTZ 82, in Theodore, 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 69831-69832, 11-24-2014). 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: March 3, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05277 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Addition and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed addition to and deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add a service to the Procurement List that will be provided by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments Must Be Received On Or Before: 4/6/2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    For Further Information or To Submit Comments Contact:

    Patricia Briscoe, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Addition

    If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to furnish the service listed below from the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following service is proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:

    Service Type: Base Operations and Administrative Services Service is Mandatory for: Marine Corps Base Hawaii (MCB), Camp Smith, Halawa, HI and Kaneohe Bay, HI Mandatory Source of Supply: PRIDE Industries, Roseville, CA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, HQBN, Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay, HI Deletions

    The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN: 7510-00-NIB-0588—Binder, Vinyl. Previous Mandatory Source: ForSight Vision, York, PA. Was Mandatory for: General Services Administration, New York, NY. NSN: 7510-01-519-4361—Binder, Round Ring, Clear Overlay, Pockets, Brown, 1/2″ Capacity, Letter. Previous Mandatory Source: South Texas Lighthouse for the Blind, Corpus Christi, TX. Was Mandatory for: Department of Veterans Affairs, NAC, Hines, IL and General Services Administration, New York, NY. NSN: 6530-00-NIB-0129—Bottle, Pharmaceutical, White, Screw Cap, 60cc. NSN: 6530-00-NIB-0130—Bottle, Pharmaceutical, White, Screw Cap, 100cc. NSN: 6530-00-NIB-0131—Bottle, Pharmaceutical, White, Screw Cap, 150cc. NSN: 6530-00-NIB-0132—Bottle, Pharmaceutical, White, Screw Cap, 300cc. NSN: 6530-00-NIB-0133—Bottle, Pharmaceutical, White, Screw Cap, 500cc. Previous Mandatory Source: Alphapointe, Kansas City, MO. Was Mandatory for: Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Contract & Grants Operations, Washington, DC. Patricia Briscoe, Deputy Director, Business Operations (Pricing and Information Management).
    [FR Doc. 2015-05210 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery; Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request AGENCY:

    Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    CNCS is submitting the below information for future CNCS Federal Register Notices in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, OMB is coordinating the development of the following proposed Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): “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 notice announces that CNCS intends to submit collections to OMB for approval and solicit comments on specific aspects for the proposed information collection.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted April 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for CNCS, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register:

    (1) By fax to: 202-395-6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for CNCS; and

    (2) Electronically by email to: [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request additional information, please contact Amy Borgstrom, Associate Director of Policy, at 202-606-6930 or email to [email protected] Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments

    No comments were received in response to the 60-day notice published in the Federal Register of March 5, 2014 (79 FR 12493).

    Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.

    Abstract: The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are 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.

    Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address the target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.

    Type of Review: Renewal.

    Affected Public: Individuals and Households, Businesses and Organizations, State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Respondents: 10,000.

    Annual responses: 10,000.

    Frequency of Response: Once per request.

    Average minutes per response: 10.

    Burden hours: 1,667.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget Control Number.

    Dated: March 3, 2015. Amy Borgstrom, Associate Director of Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05300 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System [Docket No. DARS-2015-0012] Acquisition of Items for Which Federal Prison Industries Has a Significant Market Share ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD is publishing the updated annual list of product categories for which the Federal Prison Industries' share of the DoD market is greater than five percent.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: March 29, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sheila Harris, telephone 703-614-1333.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background: On November 19, 2009, a final rule was published at 74 FR 59914 which amended the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) subpart 208.6, to implement section 827 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2008, Public Law 110-181. Section 827 changed DoD competition requirements for purchases from Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI) by requiring DoD to publish an annual list of product categories for which FPI's share of the DoD market was greater than five percent, based on the most recent fiscal year data available. Product categories on the current list, and the products within each identified product category, must be procured using competitive or fair opportunity procedures in accordance with DFARS 208.602-70.

    The Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) issued a memorandum dated February 27, 2015, that provides the current list of product categories for which FPI's share of the DOD market is greater than five percent based on Fiscal Year 2014 data from the Federal Procurement Data System. The product categories to be competed effective March 29, 2015, are the following:

    • 3990 (Miscellaneous Materials Handling Equipment) • 5210 (Measuring Tools, Craftsmen's) • 7110 (Office Furniture) • 7125 (Cabinets, Lockers, Bins and Shelving) • 7230 (Draperies, Awnings, and Shades) • 8405 (Outerwear, Men's) • 8410 (Outerwear, Women's) • 8415 (Clothing, Special Purpose)

    The DPAP memorandum with the current list of product categories for which FPI has a significant market share is posted at: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA001110-15-DPAP.pdf.

    The statute as implemented also requires DoD to—

    (1) Include FPI in the solicitation process for these items; a timely offer from FPI must be considered; and award procedures must be followed in accordance with existing policy at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 8.602(a)(4)(ii) through (v);

    (2) Continue to be make acquisitions, in accordance with FAR Subpart 8.6, for items from product categories for which FPI does not have a significant market share. FAR 8.602 requires agencies to conduct market research and make a written comparability determination, at the discretion of the contracting officer. Competitive (or fair opportunity) procedures are appropriate if the FPI product is not comparable in terms of price, quality, or time of delivery; and

    (3) Section 827 allows modification of the published list if DoD subsequently determines that new data requires adding or omitting a product category from the list.

    Manuel Quinones, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05270 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce a Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel (hereafter referred to as the Panel).

    DATES:

    Thursday, March 26, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Naval Heritage Center Theater, 701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. William H. Blanche, Alternate DFO, Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042-5101. Telephone: (703) 681-2890. Fax: (703) 681-1940. Email Address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.), Appendix, as amended) and the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended).

    Purpose of Meeting: The Panel will review and comment on recommendations made to the Director of Defense Health Agency, by the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee, regarding the Uniform Formulary.

    Meeting Agenda 1. Sign-In 2. Welcome and Opening Remarks 3. Public Citizen Comments 4. Scheduled Therapeutic Class Reviews (Comments will follow each agenda item) a. Pulmonary Artery Hypertension b. Transmucosal Immediate Release Fentanyl Products c. Oral Oncology Agents—Prostate I & II 5. Designated Newly Approved Drugs in Already-Reviewed Classes 6. Pertinent Utilization Management Issues 7. Panel Discussions and Vote

    Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and will be provided only to the first 220 people signing-in. All persons must sign-in legibly.

    Administrative Work Meeting: Prior to the public meeting, the Panel will conduct an Administrative Work Meeting from 8:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. to discuss administrative matters of the Panel. The Administrative Work Meeting will be held at the Naval Heritage Center, 701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.160, the Administrative Work Meeting will be closed to the public.

    Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the membership of the Panel at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Written statements should be submitted to the Panel's Designated Federal Officer (DFO). The DFO's contact information can be obtained from the General Services Administration's Federal Advisory Committee Act Database at http://facadatabase.gov/.

    Written statements that do not pertain to the scheduled meeting of the Panel may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting, then these statements must be submitted no later than 5 business days prior to the meeting in question. The DFO will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to all the committee members.

    Public Comments: In addition to written statements, the Panel will set aside 1 hour for individuals or interested groups to address the Panel. To ensure consideration of their comments, individuals and interested groups should submit written statements as outlined in this notice; but if they still want to address the Panel, then they will be afforded the opportunity to register to address the Panel. The Panel's DFO will have a “Sign-Up Roster” available at the Panel meeting for registration on a first-come, first-serve basis. Those wishing to address the Panel will be given no more than 5 minutes to present their comments, and at the end of the 1 hour time period, no further public comments will be accepted. Anyone who signs-up to address the Panel, but is unable to do so due to the time limitation, may submit their comments in writing; however, they must understand that their written comments may not be reviewed prior to the Panel's deliberation.

    To ensure timeliness of comments for the official record, the Panel encourages that individuals and interested groups consider submitting written statements instead of addressing the Panel.

    Dated: March 3, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05205 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2246-063; Project No. 2246-058] Yuba County Water Agency; Notice of Study Plan Meeting

    a. Project Name and Number: Yuba River Development Project No. 2246.

    b. Date and Time of Meeting: March 11, 2015; 12:00 p.m. Pacific Time.

    c. Place: Teleconference; Phone Number: (866) 994-6437; Passcode: 8013956799.

    d. FERC Contact: Alan Mitchnick, [email protected] or (202) 502-6074.

    e. Purpose of Meeting: Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA) plans to implement Study 7.11a, Radio Telemetry Study of Spring- and Fall-Run Chinook Salmon Migratory Behavior Downstream of Narrows 2 Powerhouse, in 2015. The purpose of the study is to gain a better understanding of the relationship between operation of the Narrows 2 powerhouse and spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon movement and behavior in the Yuba River near the Narrows 2 powerhouse and as far downstream as the Narrows Pool. However, due to the continued dry conditions in California, the Narrows 2 powerhouse's normal operation may be curtailed in 2015, and would not operate within its full range of flows (i.e., up to 3,400 cubic feet per second). As such, Commission staff and YCWA wish to discuss with interested stakeholders whether the implementation of Study 7.11a in 2015 is appropriate and whether study results would be sufficient to support the Commission's environmental review of the project.

    f. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to participate.

    Dated: February 27, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05247 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. OR15-19-000] Targa NGL Pipeline Company LLC; Notice of Temporary Waiver of Filing and Reporting Requirements

    Take notice that on February 23, 2015, pursuant to Rule 204 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.204 (2014), Targa NGL Pipeline Company LLC (Targa) requests that the Commission grant it a temporary waiver of Interstate Commerce Act section 6 and section 20, and the Commission's filing and reporting requirements thereunder at 18 CFR parts 341 and 357, for a natural gas liquids (NGL) pipeline located entirely in Texas that only transports NGLs owned by Targa or an affiliate.

    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 9, 2015.

    Dated: March 2, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05203 Filed 3-5-15; 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: EC15-78-000.

    Applicants: Louisville Gas & Electric Company, Kentucky Utilities Company.

    Description: Application of Louisville Gas & Electric Company, et al.

    Filed Date: 2/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150225-5346.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-79-000.

    Applicants: Blackwell Solar, LLC, Lost Hills Solar, LLC.

    Description: Application of Blackwell Solar, LLC, et al. for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Action, Confidential Treatment, and Waivers.

    Filed Date: 2/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150226-5339.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-80-000.

    Applicants: DES Wholesale, LLC.

    Description: Application for Disposition of Facilities of DES Wholesale, LLC.

    Filed Date: 2/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150226-5349.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/19/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG15-56-000.

    Applicants: Red Horse Wind 2, LLC.

    Description: Red Horse Wind 2, LLC Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.

    Filed Date: 2/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150227-5368.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG15-57-000.

    Applicants: Balko Wind, LLC.

    Description: Balko Wind, LLC Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.

    Filed Date: 2/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150227-5369.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-871-001.

    Applicants: Wheelabrator Westchester, L.P.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Compliance to 94 to be effective 3/18/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150227-5137.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-999-001.

    Applicants: Luke Paper Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Amendment to be effective 4/7/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150227-5227.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1129-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Service Agreement No. 3402; Queue No. Y2-105 to be effective 1/27/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150226-5309.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1130-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Ameren Illinois Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-02-27_SA 2752 Ameren-Bishop Hill Interconnection FSA to be effective 1/28/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150227-5125.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1131-000.

    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): March 2015 Membership Filing to be effective 3/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150227-5337.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1132-000.

    Applicants: Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing per 35.1: ELP MBR Application to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 2/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150227-5340.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1133-000.

    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): PAC Long-Term Firm BORA-LGBP Service Agreement to be effective 5/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150227-5381.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1134-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., American Transmission Company LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-02-27_SA 2754 ATC-ACEC Elective Facilities Construction Agreement to be effective 4/29/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150227-5387.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1135-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Service Agreement No. 4094; NQ128 (ISA) to be effective 1/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150227-5396.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1136-000.

    Applicants: Big Cajun I Peaking Power LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Proposed Rate Schedule FERC No. 2 to be effective 5/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150227-5424.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1137-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.

    Description: ISO New England Inc. 9th Forward Capacity Auction Results.

    Filed Date: 2/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150227-5434.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1138-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Service Agreement No. 4097; Queue AA1-019 (WMPA) to be effective 2/2/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150227-5440.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1139-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Attachment J Section III.D Revisions to be effective 5/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150227-5457.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1140-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2198R18 Kansas Power Pool NITSA NOA to be effective 2/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150227-5463.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: February 27, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05245 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-91-000] East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on February 20, 2015, East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC (East Tennessee), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77056-5310, filed an application in the above referenced docket pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting authorization to construct and operate its Loudon Expansion Project (Project) located in Monroe and Loudon Counties, Tennessee. East Tennessee asserts that the proposed Project will provide 40,000 dekatherms per day to the facilities of Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, LLC in Loudon County, Tennessee. East Tennessee states that the Project involves: (i) Approximately 10 miles of new 12-inch diameter pipeline; (ii) a new meter facility; and (iii) appurtenances. East Tennessee estimates the cost of the Project to be approximately $53.1 million, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Lisa A. Connolly, General Manager Rates and Certificates, East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, by telephone at (713) 627-4102, or by email at [email protected]

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and seven copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 23, 2015.

    Dated: March 2, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05201 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL15-49-000] City of Alexandria, Louisiana; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on February 26, 2015, the City of Alexandria, Louisiana submitted a petition for approval of revenue requirement for reactive power and voltage control from Generation Sources Service.

    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 electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 20, 2015.

    Dated: February 27, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05250 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER15-402-001; Docket No. ER15-817-000; Docket No. ER15-861-000] California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of FERC Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that on March 5, 2015 members of its staff will attend the following teleconferences to be conducted by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). The agenda and other documents for the teleconferences are available on the CAISO's Web site, www.caiso.com.

    —Energy Imbalance Market Transitional Committee —Market Update

    Sponsored by the CAISO, the teleconferences are open to all market participants and staff's attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts. The teleconferences may discuss matters at issue in the above captioned dockets.

    For further information, contact Saeed Farrokhpay at [email protected] (916) 294-0322.

    Dated: February 27, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05246 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL15-42-000] FortisUS Energy Corporation, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, Tucson Electric Power Company, UNS Electric, Inc., UniSource Energy Development Company; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On February 27, 2015, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL15-42-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation concerning the justness and reasonableness of the Fortis MBR Sellers' market-based rates in the Tucson Electric balancing authority area.1 FortisUS Energy Corporation, et al., 150 FERC ¶ 61,153 (2015).

    1 For the purpose of this filing, the Fortis MBR Sellers include: FortisUS Energy Corporation; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; Tucson Electric Power Company (Tucson Electric); UNS Electric, Inc.; and UniSource Energy Development Company.

    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL15-42-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Dated: February 27, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05254 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 12635-002] Moriah Hydro Corporation; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests February 27, 2015.

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: Original Major License.

    b. Project No.: 12635-002.

    c. Date filed: February 13, 2015 .

    d. Applicant: Moriah Hydro Corporation.

    e. Name of Project: Mineville Energy Storage Project.

    f. Location: The project would be located in an abandoned subterranean mine complex 1 in the town of Moriah, Essex County, New York. No federal lands are occupied by project works or located within the project boundary.

    1 The existing mine complex is composed of the interconnected Old Bed, Bonanza open pit, and Harmony mines.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: James A. Besha, P.E., President, Moriah Hydro Corporation, 5 Washington Square, Albany, NY 12205; or at (518) 456-7712.

    i. FERC Contact: John Mudre, (202) 502-8902 or [email protected]

    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ¶ 61,076 (2001).

    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant.

    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status: April 14, 2015.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-12635-002.

    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.

    n. The proposed project consists of: (1) An upper reservoir located within the upper portion of the mine between elevations 495 and 1,095 feet above mean sea level (msl), with a surface area of 4 acres and a storage capacity of 2,448 acre-feet; (2) a lower reservoir in the lower portion of the mine between elevations -1,075 and -1,555 feet msl, with a surface area of 5.1 acres and a storage capacity of 2,448 acre-feet; (3) a 14-foot-diameter and 2,955-foot-long upper reservoir shaft connecting the upper reservoir to the high-pressure penstock located below the powerhouse chamber floor; (4) a 14-foot-diameter and 2,955-foot-long lower reservoir shaft connecting the lower reservoir and the lower reservoir ventilation tunnel; (5) two 6-foot-diameter emergency evacuation shafts located between the powerhouse chamber and the electrical equipment chamber; (6) a 25-foot-diameter main shaft extending 2,955 feet from the surface down to the powerhouse chamber; (7) 15-foot-diameter high- and low-pressure steel penstocks embedded beneath the powerhouse chamber floor; (8) a 320-foot-long by 80-foot-wide powerhouse chamber, containing 100 reversible pump-turbine units, each with a nameplate generating capacity of 2.4 megawatts; (9) a 274-foot-long by 36-foot-wide underground electrical equipment chamber adjacent to the powerhouse chamber; (10) an inclined electrical tunnel connecting the electrical equipment chamber to a new 115-kilovolt (kV) substation constructed adjacent to an existing single circuit 115-kV transmission line located about one horizontal mile from the underground powerhouse chamber; and (11) appurtenant facilities. The project would operate as a closed-loop system to meet energy demands and grid control requirements. The project would have an average annual generation of 421 gigawatt-hours (GWh). The average pumping power used by the project would be 554 GWh.

    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.

    You may also register online 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.

    p. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate.

    Issue Notice of Acceptance or Deficiency April 2015 Request Additional Information April 2015 Issue Acceptance Letter July 2015 Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments August 2015 Comments on Scoping Document 1 September 2015 Issue Scoping Document 2 October 2015 Issue notice of ready for environmental analysis October 2015 Commission issues EA, draft EA, or draft EIS April 2016 Comments on EA, draft EA, or draft EIS June 2016 Commission issues final EA or final EIS August 2016 Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05251 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. PF15-5-000; PF15-6-000] Dominion Transmission, Inc., Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Supply Header Project and Atlantic Coast Pipeline Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Supply Header Project (SHP) involving construction and operation of facilities by Dominion Transmission, Inc. (Dominion) in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and the Atlantic Coast Pipeline Project (ACP Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (Atlantic) in West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. The environmental impacts of both projects will be considered in one EIS, which will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the projects are in the public convenience and necessity.

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the projects. 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 April 28, 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 the SHP or ACP Projects to the Commission before the opening of the dockets on October 31, 2014, you will need to file those comments under Docket No. PF15-5-000 or PF15-6-000 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 any of the public scoping meetings scheduled as follows:

    Date and time Location Monday, March 9, 2015, 7:00 p.m. Pine Forest High School, 525 Andrews Road, Fayetteville, NC 28311. Tuesday, March 10, 2015, 7:00 p.m. Forest Hills Middle School, 1210 Forest Hills Road, Wilson, NC 27896. Wednesday, March 11, 2015, 7:00 p.m. William R. Davie Middle School, 4391 Hwy. 158, Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870. Thursday, March 12, 2015, 7:00 p.m. Jolliff Middle School, 1021 Jolliff Road, Chesapeake, VA 23331. Monday, March 16, 2015, 7:00 p.m. Dinwiddie Middle School, 11608 Courthouse Road, Dinwiddie, VA 23841. Tuesday, March 17, 2015, 7:00 p.m. Prince Edward County High School Auditorium, 1482 Zion Hill Road, Farmville, VA 23901. Wednesday, March 18, 2015, 7:00 p.m. Nelson County Middle School, 6925 Thomas Nelson Highway, Lovingston, VA 22949. Thursday, March 19, 2015, 7:00 p.m. Stuarts Draft High School, 1028 Augusta Farms Road, Stuarts Draft, VA 24477. Monday, March 23, 2015, 7:00 p.m. Elkins High School, 100 Kennedy Drive, Elkins, WV 26241. Tuesday, March 24, 2015, 7:00 p.m. Bridgeport High School, 515 Johnson Avenue, Bridgeport, WV 26330.

    The purpose of these scoping meetings is to provide an opportunity to verbally comment on the projects. If a significant number of people are interested in commenting at the meetings, we 1 may establish a 3- to 5-minute time limit for each commentor to ensure that all people wishing to comment have the opportunity in the time allotted for the meeting. If time limits on comments are implemented, they will be strictly enforced. A transcript of each meeting will be added to the Commission's administrative record to ensure that your comments are accurately recorded.

    1 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for these projects. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of these planned projects and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the projects, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.

    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

    Summary of the Planned Projects

    The SHP would involve the construction and operation of approximately 38.7 miles of pipeline loop 2 and the modification of existing compression facilities in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The pipeline facilities associated with the SHP would be comprised of two main components: (1) Approximately 3.8 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline loop adjacent to Dominion's existing LN-25 pipeline in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania; and (2) approximately 34.9 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline loop adjacent to Dominion's existing TL-360 pipeline in Harrison, Doddridge, Tyler, and Wetzel Counties, West Virginia.

    2 A pipeline “loop” is a segment of pipe constructed parallel to an existing pipeline to increase capacity.

    In addition to the planned pipelines, Dominion plans to modify four existing compressor stations in Westmoreland and Green Counties, Pennsylvania and Marshall and Wetzel Counties, West Virginia. Dominion would install new gas-fired turbines that would provide for a combined increase of 75,700 horsepower of compression. Dominion would also install new valves, pig launcher/receiver sites,3 and associated appurtenances at these existing compressor station locations.

    3 A “pig” is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline, conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.

    The ACP Project would involve the construction and operation of 554 miles of variable diameter natural gas pipeline in West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. The pipeline facilities associated with the ACP Project would be comprised of four main components as follows:

    • Approximately 295.6 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline in Harrison, Lewis, Upshur, Randolph, and Pocahontas Counties, West Virginia; Highland, Augusta, Nelson, Buckingham, Cumberland, Prince Edward, Nottoway, Dinwiddie, Brunswick, and Greensville Counties, Virginia; and Northampton County, North Carolina;

    • approximately 179.9 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline in Northampton, Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston, Sampson, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties, North Carolina;

    • approximately 75.7 miles of 20-inch-diameter lateral pipeline in Northampton County, North Carolina; and Greensville, Southampton, Suffolk, and Chesapeake Counties, Virginia; and

    • approximately 3.1 miles of 16-inch-diameter natural gas lateral pipeline in Brunswick County, Virginia.

    In addition to the planned pipelines, Atlantic plans to construct and operate three new compressor stations totaling 108,275 horsepower of compression. These compressor stations would be located in Lewis County, West Virginia; Buckingham County, Virginia; and Northampton County, North Carolina. Atlantic would also install metering stations, valves, pig launcher/receiver sites, and associated appurtenances along the planned pipeline system.

    The SHP and ACP Projects would be capable of delivering 1.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day to seven planned distribution points in West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. If approved, construction of the projects is proposed to begin in September 2016. The general location of the projects' facilities and a number of alternatives under consideration are shown in the maps in appendix 1.4

    4 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

    Construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 12,972 acres of land for the pipeline and aboveground facilities. The typical construction right-of-way for pipeline facilities would vary between 125 feet wide for the 42-inch-diameter pipeline and 75 feet wide for the 16-inch-diameter lateral pipeline, with additional workspace needed in some locations due to site-specific conditions. Following construction, approximately 4,370 acres of land would be retained for permanent operation of the facilities. Land affected by construction but not required for operation would generally be allowed to revert to former uses.

    The EIS Process

    The FERC will be the lead federal agency for the preparation of the EIS. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is participating as a cooperating agency because the ACP Project would cross the Monongahela and George Washington National Forests in West Virginia and Virginia. As a cooperating agency, the USFS intends to adopt the EIS per Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1506.3 to meet its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regarding Atlantic's planned application for a Right-of-Way Grant and Temporary Use Permit for crossing federally administered lands. The USFS additionally will assess how the planned pipeline conforms to the direction contained in the Monongahela and George Washington National Forests' Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP). Changes in the LRMP could be required if the pipeline is authorized across the National Forests. The EIS will provide the documentation to support any needed amendments to the LRMPs.

    NEPA requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This 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.

    In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned projects under these general headings:

    • Geology and soils;

    • land use;

    • water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;

    • cultural resources;

    • vegetation and wildlife;

    • air quality and noise;

    • endangered and threatened species;

    • socioeconomics; and

    • public safety.

    We will present our recommendations in the EIS on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas, as applicable.

    Dominion and Atlantic are evaluating several route alternatives that were developed through the company's route selection and constraint analysis processes or identified by stakeholders during public outreach efforts. Major route alternatives that have been identified by Dominion and Atlantic are presented in appendix 1. More detailed maps of these, and other, potential alternative routes can be found on the FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov, or Dominion's Web site at https://www.dom.com/corporate/what-we-do/natural-gas/atlantic-coast-pipeline. Part of our NEPA analysis will include evaluating possible alternatives to the planned projects or portions of the projects. Thus, as part of our scoping process, we are specifically soliciting comments on the range of alternatives for both of the projects.

    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.

    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 8.

    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by lawand/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to these projects to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EIS.5 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. As discussed above, the USFS has expressed its intention to participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS to satisfy its NEPA responsibilities related to these projects. In addition to the USFS, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have also agreed to participate as cooperating agencies.

    5 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6.

    Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Offices, and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the projects' potential effects on historic properties.6 We will define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPOs as the projects develop. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads). Our EIS for these projects will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under Section 106.

    6 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

    Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and the environmental information provided by Dominion and Atlantic. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis.

    • Land use impacts, including the exercise of eminent domain and future land use restrictions;

    • impacts on property values, tourism, and recreational resources;

    • safety issues, such as construction and operation of the planned facilities near existing residences, schools, businesses, and military training facilities, and in karst and steep slope terrain;

    • alternatives, including routing within existing linear corridors, avoiding private property, National Forests, National Parkway lands, National Wildlife Refuge land, and other sensitive environmental features;

    • impacts on local emergency management systems;

    • impacts on forested areas and other vegetation;

    • impacts on surface water resources including springs, seeps, and wetlands;

    • impacts on groundwater resources and wells;

    • impacts on protected species and habitat;

    • impacts on cultural resources including battlefields, cemeteries, and historic properties; and

    • concerns regarding construction and operational noise, especially related to compressor stations.

    Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the projects. 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 April 28, 2015.

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the appropriate project docket number(s) (PF15-5-000 for the SHP and PF15-6-000 for the ACP Project) 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 feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. 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 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.” 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, as well as anyone who submits comments on the projects. 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 projects.

    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 2).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Dominion and Atlantic file applications with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor,” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives formal applications for the projects.

    Additional Information

    Additional information about the projects 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., PF15-5 or PF15-6). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/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 27, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05248 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG15-58-000.

    Applicants: Oak Grove Management Company LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification of EG of Oak Grove Management Company LLC.

    Filed Date: 3/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150302-5139.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG15-59-000.

    Applicants: Sandow Power Company LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification of EG of Sandow Power Company LLC.

    Filed Date: 3/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150302-5141.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2109-003; ER13-2106-003; ER10-1410-003; ER13-321-003; ER13-412-002; ER13-450-002; ER13-434-002; ER13-518-002; ER13-1403-004; ER14-2140-003; ER14-2141-003; ER15-632-001; ER15-634-001; ER14-2466-002; ER14-2465-002;

    Applicants: Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC, Cottonwood Solar, LLC, CID Solar, LLC, RE Camelot LLC, RE Columbia Two LLC, Selmer Farm, LLC, Mulberry Farm, LLC, Dominion Retail, Inc., Dominion Energy Manchester Street, Inc., Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc., Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, LLC, Fairless Energy, LLC, NedPower Mount Storm, LLC, Dominion Bridgeport Fuel Cell, LLC, Virginia Electric and Power Company.

    Description: Supplement to January 9, 2015 Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the Dominion Companies.

    Filed Date: 2/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20150219-5211.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1639-003.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Compliance Filing Concerning the Renewable Technology Resource Exemption to be effective 3/2/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150302-5275.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-124-002.

    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Response to Deficiency Letter dated January 15, 2015 to be effective 9/17/2014.

    Filed Date: 3/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150302-5180.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-542-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: 2015-03-02_Land Costs Recovery Compliance Filing to be effective 1/31/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150302-5304.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-933-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 2015-03-02_Amend Schedule 31 Annual Update to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150302-5300.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-995-001.

    Applicants: Verso Androscoggin LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Amendment to Filing to be effective 4/6/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150302-5298.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1141-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-02-27_ORCA Rate Schedule 44 to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150227-5513.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1142-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp..

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): PGE Hemlock Sub Tap Agreement to be effective 4/29/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150227-5514.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1143-000.

    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota coporation.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-2-27 NSP-MMPA-Rev I&I_3-NSP_0.1.0 to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150227-5524.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1144-000.

    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Appendix XI Gen Int. O&M Fixed Rate Charge to be effective 3/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150227-5545.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1145-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-02-27_MISO-SPP JOA M2M Filing to be effective3/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150227-5549.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1146-000.

    Applicants: Bucksport Mill LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Bucksport Mill LLC eTariff 2015-03-02 to be effective 3/2/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150302-5285.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1147-000.

    Applicants: Bucksport Generation LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Bucksport Generation LLC eTariff 2015-03-02 to be effective 3/2/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150302-5286.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1148-000.

    Applicants: Milford Wind Corridor Phase I, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 5/2/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150302-5312.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1149-000.

    Applicants: Longfellow Wind, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 5/2/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150302-5318.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RR15-7-000.

    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.

    Description: Petition of North American Electric Reliability Corporation for Approval of Amendments to the Bylaws of the Texas Reliability Entity, Inc.

    Filed Date: 2/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150227-5580.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 2, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05249 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-88-000] Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on February 13, 2015, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee) filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting authority to abandon, construct and operate certain mainline pipeline facilities located in Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio, all as more completely described in the Application. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to John E. Griffin, Assistant General Counsel, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, phone: (713) 420-3624, facsimile: (713) 420-1601, email: [email protected], or H. Milton Palmer, Jr., Rates and Regulatory Affairs, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, phone: (713) 420-3297, facsimile: (713) 420-1605, email: [email protected]

    Specifically, Tennessee requests authorization to abandon one of its multiple looped parallel pipelines that comprise approximately 964 miles of mainline pipeline facilities between Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana, and Columbiana County, Ohio (Abandoned Line) by sale to Utica Marcellus Texas Pipeline LLC (UMTP), its affiliate. UMTP intends to use this pipeline, in part, for conversion to natural gas liquids service. In order to replace the capacity that would otherwise be lost by the sale of the Abandoned Line, Tennessee proposes to construct and operate approximately 7.6 miles of new pipeline looping in Kentucky and a total of 124,771 horsepower of compression at four new compressor stations in Ohio and two stations in Kentucky (collectively, the Replacement Facilities). Prior to the abandonment and sale of the Abandoned Line, Tennessee will also undertake activities at a series of worksites along the length of the Abandoned Line to disconnect it from the remaining Tennessee system. The estimated cost for the abandonment and replacement is approximately $412 million. When UMTP ultimately acquires the abandoned line under the terms of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, UMTP will reimburse Tennessee for all of the costs associated with the abandonment and replacement activities, and UMTP will provide for the reimbursement of fuel costs for a period of 10 years.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and seven copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 23, 2015.

    Dated: March 2, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05202 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-92-000] Equitrans, L.P.; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on February 19, 2015, Equitrans, L.P. (Equitrans), 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222-3111, filed a prior notice application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and sections 157.205, 157.208, 157.210, and 157.216 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations under the NGA, and Equitrans' blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP96-352-000. Equitrans seeks authorization to abandon and replace a segment of its TP-7911 pipeline located in Cambria County, Pennsylvania, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is open to the public for inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or TTY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding this application should be Paul Diehl, Senior Counsel—Midstream, EQT Corporation, 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, or phone (412) 395-5540, or by email [email protected]

    Specifically, Equitrans proposes to replace approximately 3.0 miles of 12-inch diameter pipe with 20-inch diameter pipeline and install pig launchers and receivers to maintain system integrity by providing Equitrans with the ability to perform in-line inspections for assessing the condition of the pipeline, as well as increase the operational reliability of the TP-7911 pipeline.

    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenter will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: February 27, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05253 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP14-539-000] Ozark Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Ozark Abandonment Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Ozark Abandonment Project proposed by Ozark Gas Transmission, LLC (Ozark) in the above-referenced docket. Ozark requests authorization to abandon in-place approximately 159 miles of existing 10- to 20-inch-diameter mainline natural gas pipeline and auxiliary and associated facilities located between Sebastian and White Counties, Arkansas. Ozark would also abandon by removal 29 minor aboveground facilities at 27 sites.

    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the abandonment activities associated with the Ozark Abandonment Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8371.

    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. 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 the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before March 30, 2015.

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP14-539-000) 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 feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” 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.

    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).1 Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The Commission grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

    1 See the previous discussion on the methods for filing comments.

    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., CP14-539). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: February 27, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05252 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD15-5-000] Available Transfer Capability Standards for Wholesale Electric Transmission Services; Supplemental Notice of Workshop on Available Transfer Capability Standards

    As announced in a Notice issued on December 30, 2014, and Supplemental Notice issued January 30, 2015, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff will hold a workshop on Thursday, March 5, 2015 to discuss standards for calculating Available Transfer Capability (ATC) for wholesale electric transmission services. The workshop will be held in the Commission Meeting Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    As clarified in the attached Updated Agenda, the workshop will commence at 12:00 p.m. and conclude by 4:15 p.m., EST. The specific times of the session discussions, as well as the list of speakers, may be subject to further change. This workshop is free of charge and open to the public. Commission members may participate in the workshop.

    Those who plan to attend the workshop are encouraged to complete the registration form located at: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/03-05-15-form.asp. There is no registration deadline.

    Transcripts of the workshop will be available for a fee from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. (202-347-3700 or 1-800-336-6646). Additionally, there will be a free webcast of the workshop. Anyone with Internet access who wants to listen to the workshop can do so by navigating to the Calendar of Events at www.ferc.gov, locating the technical workshop in the Calendar, and clicking on the webcast link. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the webcast and offers the option of listening to the workshop via phone-bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit www.CapitolConnection.org or call 703-993-3100.

    While this workshop is not convened for the purpose of discussing specific cases, the workshop may address matters that are at issue in the following pending Commission proceeding: North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Docket No. RM14-7-000.

    Commission workshops are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to [email protected] or call toll free 1-866-208-3372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations.

    For further information on this workshop, please contact:

    Logistical Information

    Sarah McKinley, Office of External Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8368, [email protected]

    Technical Information

    Christopher Young, Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6403, [email protected]

    Legal Information

    Richard Wartchow, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8744, [email protected]

    Dated: February 27, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05257 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9923-91-Region 5] Notice of Final Decision To Reissue the ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor, LLC Land-Ban Exemption AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of final decision on a request by ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor, LLC of Burns Harbor, Indiana to reissue its exemption from the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) that an exemption to the land disposal restrictions under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) has been granted to ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor, LLC (AMBH) of Burns Harbor, Indiana, for four Class I injection wells located in Burns Harbor, Indiana. As required by 40 CFR part 148, AMBH has demonstrated, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that there will be no migration of hazardous constituents out of the injection zone or into an underground source of drinking water (USDW) for at least 10,000 years. This final decision allows the continued underground injection by AMBH of a specific restricted waste, Spent Pickle Liquor (SPL) into one Class I hazardous waste injection well specifically identified as SPL #1; and of waste ammonia liquor (WAL) into three Class I hazardous waste injection wells specifically identified as WAL #1, WAL #2 and WAL #3 at the AMBH facility. This decision constitutes a final EPA action for which there is no administrative appeal.

    DATES:

    This action is effective as of March 6, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephen Roy, Lead Petition Reviewer, EPA, Region 5, Water Division, Underground Injection Control Branch, WU-16J, Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590; telephone number: (312) 886-6556; fax number (312) 692-2951; email address: [email protected] Copies of the petition and all pertinent information are on file and are part of the Administrative Record. It is recommended that you contact the lead reviewer prior to reviewing the Administrative Record.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    AMBH submitted a request for reissuance of its existing exemption from the land disposal restrictions of hazardous waste to include the newly-drilled WAL #3 well in July, 2013. EPA staff reviewed all data pertaining to the petition, including, but not limited to, well construction, well operations, regional and local geology, seismic activity, penetrations of the confining zone, and computational models of the injection zone. EPA has determined that the hydrogeological and geochemical conditions at the site and the nature of the waste streams are such that reliable predictions can be made that fluid movement conditions are such that injected fluids will not migrate out of the injection zone within 10,000 years, as set forth at 40 CFR part 148. The injection zone for the AMBH facility is composed of the lower Eau Claire Formation, the Mount Simon Sandstone and the upper portion of the Precambrian rocks, between 2170 and 4286 feet below the surface. The confining zone at the AMBH facility is the upper Eau Claire Formation, which is found between 1936 and 2170 feet. The confining zone is separated from the lowermost underground source of drinking water (at a depth of 726 feet below ground level) by a sequence of permeable and less permeable sedimentary rocks. This sequence provides additional protection from fluid migration into drinking water sources.

    EPA issued a draft decision, which described the reasons for granting this exemption in more detail, a fact sheet, which summarized these reasons, and a public notice on November 14, 2014, pursuant to 40 CFR 124.10. The public comment period ended on December 16, 2014. EPA received no comments but during the comment period, EPA realized that the volume limitation identified in section I.B was inadvertently shown as gallons per month instead of gallons per year. The same mistake was made in Condition #8. Therefore, EPA is issuing the final exemption with this condition corrected to be consistent with the language in the AMBH UIC permits.

    Conditions

    This exemption is subject to the following conditions. Non-compliance with any of these conditions is grounds for termination of the exemption:

    (1) All regulatory requirements in 40 CFR 148.23 and 148.24 are incorporated by reference;

    (2) The exemption applies to the existing injection wells, Spent Pickle Liquor #1, Waste Ammonia Liquor #1, Waste Ammonia Liquor #2, and Waste Ammonia Liquor #3, located at the ArcelorMittal facility at 250 West U.S. Highway 12, Burns Harbor, Indiana;

    (3) Injection is limited to that part of the Lower Mount Simon Sandstone and the upper portion of the Precambrian rocks at depths between 2722 and 4286 feet below ground level;

    (4) Hazardous wastes denoted by the waste codes D010, D018, and D038 may only be injected into Waste Ammonia Liquor #1, Waste Ammonia Liquor #2, and Waste Ammonia Liquor #3. Hazardous waste denoted by waste code K062 may only be injected into Spent Pickle Liquor #1. Other fluids necessary for well testing, stimulation, etc. may be injected when approved by EPA;

    (5) The chemical properties of the injectate that will be monitored are limited according to the table below:

    Chemical constituent or property Concentration limitation at the well head
  • (mg/L)
  • Benzene 220 (maximum). pH Minimum pH is zero. Chromium 133 (maximum). Naphthalene 260 (maximum). Nickel 50 (maximum). Phenol 3780 (maximum). Pyridine 116 (maximum). Selenium 5 (maximum).

    (6) The annual average of the specific gravity of the injected spent pickle liquor must be no greater than 1.31; the annual average of the specific gravity of the waste ammonia liquor must be no less than 0.99;

    (7) The chemical properties of the injectate that defined the edge of the plume in the demonstration are benzene for waste ammonia liquor and pH for the spent pickle liquor;

    (8) The monthly average injection rate for SPL must not exceed 175 gallons per minute and the monthly average injection rate for WAL must not exceed 300 gallons per minute, plant-wide, cumulatively covering all WAL injection wells.

    (9) This exemption is approved for the 21-year modeled injection period, which ends on December 31, 2027. ArcelorMittal may petition EPA for a reissuance of the exemption beyond that date, provided that a new and complete no-migration petition is received at EPA, Region 5, by July 1, 2027;

    (10) ArcelorMittal shall submit monthly reports to EPA containing a fluid analysis of the injected waste which shall indicate the chemical and physical properties upon which the no-migration demonstration was based, including the physical and chemical properties listed in Conditions 5 and 6 of this exemption approval;

    (11) ArcelorMittal shall submit an annual report containing the results of a bottom hole pressure survey (fall-off test) performed on Spent Pickle Liquor #1, Waste Ammonia Liquor #1, Waste Ammonia Liquor #2, or Waste Ammonia Liquor #3 to EPA. The survey shall be performed after shutting in the well for a period of time sufficient to allow the pressure in the injection interval to reach equilibrium, in accordance with 40 CFR 146.68(e)(1). The annual report shall include a comparison of reservoir parameters determined from the fall-off test with parameters used in the approved no-migration demonstration;

    (12) The petitioner shall fully comply with all requirements set forth in Underground Injection Control Permits IN-127-1W-0001, IN-127-1W-0003, IN-127-1W-0004, and IN-127-1W-0007 issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and

    (13) Whenever EPA determines that the basis for approval of a petition may no longer be valid, EPA may terminate this exemption and may require a new demonstration in accordance with 40 CFR 148.20.

    Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically from the Government Publishing Office under the “Federal Register” listings at FDSys (http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=FR).

    Dated: February 18, 2015. Timothy C. Henry, Acting Director, Water Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05240 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0047; FRL-9922-69] Implementation of a New Label for the Design for the Environment (DfE) Safer Product Labeling Program and Supporting Modifications to the DfE Standard for Safer Products; Notice of Availability AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is making available a document that announces and implements several important changes to EPA's Safer Product Labeling Program (SPLP), as well as a number of conforming changes to the program's Standard for Safer Products, including: New label designs and a new name for the EPA SPLP; an associated fragrance-free label; and related changes to the standard that qualifies products for the label.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 5, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0047, by one of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: David DiFiore, Chemistry, Economics and Sustainable Strategies Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 202-564-8796; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

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

    You may be affected by this action if you participate in or applying for certification under the DfE Safer Product Labeling Program and use or hope to use the program's logo on your products. Also potentially affected are consumers, institutional purchasers, retailers, and distributors of DfE-labeled products who use the logo to identify products that have met the Agency's safer-product criteria. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Manufacturing (NAICS codes 31-33).

    • Construction (NAICS code 23).

    • Wholesale trade (NAICS code 42).

    • Retail trade (NAICS codes 44-45).

    • Professional, scientific and technical services (NAICS code 54).

    • Accommodations and food Services (NAICS code 72).

    • Other services, except public administration (NAICS code 81).

    • Public administration (NAICS code 92).

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is issuing a document, “Changes to the Standard to Implement the Safer Choice Label” (https://wcms.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-02/documents/safer-choice-standard-changes.pdf), that implements a new label and name for the DfE Safer Product Labeling Program, namely, the EPA “Safer Choice” Program. The new label is available for immediate use to program partners. The Agency is also making new-label-related changes to the program's standard that qualifies products for participation in the program. Finally, EPA is issuing a new, optional fragrance-free certification. The program has redesigned its label for several reasons: To better communicate the program's human health and environmental protection goals, increase consumer and institutional/industrial purchaser understanding and recognition of products bearing the label, and encourage innovation and the development of safer chemicals and chemical-based products. While effective immediately, the Agency is requesting comment on the changes that are described in the referenced document (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0047), including the fragrance-free certification, and may make further programmatic changes based on the comments received. Please note that the Agency has received extensive public input on the logo designs and is not requesting further comment on them.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: February 11, 2015. Wendy C. Hamnett, Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05073 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9019-8] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 02/23/2015 through 02/27/2015 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

    EIS No. 20150047, Final EIS, USFS, CA, Heavenly Epic Discovery Project, Review Period Ends: 04/13/2015, Contact: Matt Dickinson, 530-543-2769. EIS No. 20150048, Final EIS, USFS, CO, Middle Bald Mountain Area Communication Site, Review Period Ends: 04/06/2015, Contact: Carol Kruse, 970-295-6663. EIS No. 20150049, Draft Supplement, NRCS, MS, Long Beach Watershed, Comment Period Ends: 04/20/2015, Contact: Kurt Readus, 601-965-5205. EIS No. 20150050, Final EIS, USA, CA, The Modernization and Repair of Piers 2 and 3 at Military Ocean Terminal Concord, Review Period Ends: 04/06/2015, Contact: Sarah Garner, 618-220-6284. EIS No. 20150051, Draft EIS, BLM, CA, West Mojave Planning Area, Draft Plan Amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, Comment Period Ends: 06/04/2015, Contact: Edythe Seehafer, 760-252-6021. EIS No. 20150052, Final EIS, FTA, CA, Redlands Passenger Rail Project, Contact: Dominique Paukowits, 415-744-2735. Under MAP-21 Section 1319, FTA has issued a single FEIS and ROD. Therefore, the 30-day wait/review period under NEPA does not apply to this action. EIS No. 20150053, Final Supplement, BOEM, Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales 246 and 248 in the Western Planning Area, Review Period Ends: 04/06/2015, Contact: Gary Goeke, 504-736-3233. EIS No. 20150054, Draft EIS, NRC, FL, Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 6 and 7, Combined Licenses (COLs), Comment Period Ends: 05/22/2015, Contact: Alicia Williamson-Dickerson, 301-415-1878. EIS No. 20150055, Draft EIS, USFS, OR, Goose Project, Comment Period Ends: 04/20/2015, Contact: Elysia Retzlaff, 541-822-7214. EIS No. 20150056, Draft EIS, USFS, FL, Beasley Pond Analysis Area, Comment Period Ends: 04/20/2015, Contact: Branden Tolver, 850-926-3561. Amended Notices EIS No. 20150007, Draft EIS, BLM, CO, Bull Mountain Unit Master Development Plan, Comment Period Ends: 04/16/2015, Contact: Gina Jones, 970-240-5300. Revision to the FR Notice Published 01/16/2015; Extending Comment Period from 03/02/2015 to 04/16/2015. Dated: March 3, 2015. Cliff Rader, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05322 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0791] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 5, 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 Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0791.

    Title: Section 32.7300, Accounting for Judgments and Other Costs Associated with Litigation.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 2 respondents; 2 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 4 to 36 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 161, 201-205 and 218-220 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 40 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: No cost.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality. The Commission is not requesting that respondents submit confidential information to the FCC.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission adopted accounting rules that require carriers to account for adverse federal antitrust judgments and post-judgment special charges. With regard to settlements of such lawsuits there will be a presumption that carriers can recover the portion of the settlement that represents the avoidable costs of litigation; provided that the carrier makes a required showing. To receive recognition of its avoided cost of litigation a carrier must demonstrate, in a request for special relief, the avoided costs of litigation by showing the amount corresponding to the additional litigation expenses discounted to present value, that the carrier reasonably estimates it would have paid if it had not settled. Settlement costs in excess of the avoided costs of litigation are presumed not recoverable unless a carrier rebuts that presumption by showing the basic factors that enticed the carrier to settle and demonstrating that ratepayers benefited from the settlement.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Managing Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05181 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION [Notice 2015-02] Filing Dates for the New York Special Election in the 11th Congressional District AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of filing dates for special election.

    SUMMARY:

    New York has scheduled a Special General Election on May 5, 2015, to fill the U.S. House seat in the Eleventh Congressional District vacated by Representative Michael G. Grimm.

    DATES:

    Committees required to file reports in connection with the Special General Election on May 5, 2015, shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report, and a 30-day Post-General Report.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Elizabeth S. Kurland, Information Division, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463; Telephone: (202) 694-1100; Toll Free (800) 424-9530.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Principal Campaign Committees

    All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the New York Special General Election shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report on April 23, 2015, and a 30-day Post-General Report on June 4, 2015. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)

    Unauthorized Committees (PACs and Party Committees)

    Political committees filing on a semi-annual basis in 2015 are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the New York Special General Election by the close of books for the applicable report(s). (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)

    Committees filing monthly that make contributions or expenditures in connection with the New York Special General Election will continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.

    Additional disclosure information in connection with the New York Special Election may be found on the FEC Web site at http://www.fec.gov/info/report_dates.shtml.

    Disclosure of Lobbyist Bundling Activity

    Principal campaign committees, party committees and Leadership PACs that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the special elections must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L if they receive two or more bundled contributions from lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess of $17,600 during the special election reporting periods. (See charts below for closing date of each period.) 11 CFR 104.22(a)(5)(v), (b).

    1 These dates indicate the end of the reporting period. A reporting period always begins the day after the closing date of the last report filed. If the committee is new and has not previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activity that occurred before the committee registered as a political committee with the Commission up through the close of books for the first report due.

    Calendar of Reporting Dates for New York Special Election—Quarterly Filing Committees Involved in the Special General (05/05/15) Must File Report Close of books 1 Reg./cert. and overnight mailing deadline Filing deadline April Quarterly ——WAIVED —— Pre-General 04/15/15 04/20/15 04/23/15 Post-General 05/25/15 06/04/15 06/04/15 July Quarterly 06/30/15 07/15/15 07/15/15 Semi-annual Filing Committees Involved in the Special General (05/05/15) Must File Report Close of books 1 Reg./cert. and overnight mailing deadline Filing deadline Pre-General 04/15/15 04/20/15 04/23/15 Post-General 05/25/15 06/04/15 06/04/15 Mid-Year 06/30/15 07/31/15 07/31/15 Dated: March 2, 2015.

    On behalf of the Commission.

    Ann M. Ravel, Chair, Federal Election Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05175 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-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.

    FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:

    80 FR 11202, March 2, 2015.

    CHANGE IN THE MEETING:

    The meeting has been rescheduled for Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 1:00 p.m.

    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. 2015-05440 Filed 3-4-15; 04:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    DATE AND TIME:

    Tuesday March 3, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. and its Continuation on Thursday March 5, 2015 at the Conclusion of the Open Meeting.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.

    STATUS:

    This meeting will be closed to the public.

    FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:

    80 FR 10482, February 26, 2015.

    CHANGE IN THE MEETING:

    The meeting will be continued at the conclusion of the open meeting on Tuesday, March 10, 2015.

    PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05441 Filed 3-4-15; 04:15 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 23, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. Merchants Financial Group, Inc., Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Winona, Minnesota; to retain voting shares of Merchants Financial Group, Inc., Winona, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Merchants Bank, National Association, Winona, Minnesota.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Justine Hurry, Glenbrook, Nevada; to acquire control of Premier Bank, Denver, Colorado.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 2, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05182 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 2, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer), P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:

    1. BancorpSouth, Inc., Tupelo, Mississippi; to merge with Central Community Corporation, Temple, Texas, and thereby indirectly acquire First State Bank Central Texas, Austin, Texas.

    2. BancorpSouth, Inc., Tupelo, Mississippi; to acquire, through merger, Ouachita Bancshares Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire Ouachita Independent Bank, both in Monroe, Louisiana.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President), 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Ironhorse Financial Group, Inc., Muskogee, Oklahoma; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Benefit Bank, Fort Smith, Arkansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 3, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05220 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 23, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. NebraskaLand Financial Services, Inc., North Platte, Nebraska; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of NFS Holdings LLC, North Platte, Nebraska, and to continue to engage in lending and servicing of loans, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1).

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 2, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05183 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 142 3249] AmeriFreight, Inc. and Marius Lehmann; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order 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 or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before March 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/amerifreightconsent online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “AmerFreight, Inc.- Consent Agreement; File No. 142 3249” on your comment and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/amerifreightconsent by following the instructions on the Web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “AmerFreight, Inc.- Consent Agreement; File No. 142 3249” 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:

    Victor DeFrancis, Bureau of Consumer Protection, (202) 326-3495, 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 order 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 27, 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 31, 2015. Write “AmerFreight, Inc.- Consent Agreement; File No. 142 3249” 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/amerifreightconsent 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 “AmerFreight, Inc.—Consent Agreement; File No. 142 3249” 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 31, 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 Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment

    The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from AmeriFreight, Inc. (“AmeriFreight”) and Marius Lehmann, an officer of AmeriFreight (“Respondents”).

    The proposed consent order (“proposed order”) has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.

    AmeriFreight is an automobile shipment broker—that is, it arranges shipment of consumers' automobiles through third-party freight carriers. This matter involves AmeriFreight's online advertising for those services. The Commission's complaint alleges that the Respondents violated Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act by misrepresenting that AmeriFreight was a highly rated or top-ranked automobile shipment broker based on its customers' unbiased reviews. The complaint also alleges that AmeriFreight failed to disclose that it paid consumers to post reviews.

    The proposed order includes injunctive relief that prohibits these alleged violations and fences in similar and related violations.

    Part I of the Order prohibits the Respondents from misrepresenting that their products or services are highly rated or top-ranked based on unbiased customer reviews or that their customer reviews are unbiased.

    Part II of the Order requires the Respondents, when using an endorsement to advertise any product or service, to clearly and prominently disclose a material connection, if one exists, between the person providing the endorsement and Respondents.

    Part III contains recordkeeping requirements for advertisements and other documents relevant to the order.

    Parts IV through VII of the proposed order require Respondents to: Deliver a copy of the order to principals, officers, directors, managers, employees, agents, and representatives having responsibilities with respect to the subject matter of the order; notify the Commission of changes in corporate structure, discontinuance of current business or employment, or affiliation with any new business or employment that might affect compliance obligations under the order; and file compliance reports with the Commission.

    Part VIII provides that the order will terminate after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.

    The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify the proposed order's terms in any way.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05105 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”). The FTC intends to ask OMB to extend for an additional three years the current PRA clearance for the FTC's enforcement of the information collection requirements in its Fair Packaging and Labeling Act regulations (“FPLA Rules”). That clearance expires on May 31, 2015.

    DATES:

    Comments must be filed by April 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “FPLA Rules, PRA Comment, P074200” on your comment and file your comment online athttps://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/fplaregspra2 by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), 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 J), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Megan Gray, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, (202) 326-3405, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Room 9541, Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On December 16, 2014, the FTC sought public comment on the information collection requirements associated with the FPLA Rules (December 16, 2014 Notice1 ), 16 CFR parts 500-503 (OMB Control Number 3084-0110).2 No relevant comments were received. Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, that implement the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to renew the pre-existing clearance for the Rule. All comments should be filed as prescribed herein, and must be received on or before April 6, 2015.

    1 79 FR 74722.

    2 Section 4 of the FPLA specifically requires packages or labels to be marked with: (1) A statement of identity; (2) a net quantity of contents disclosure; and (3) the name and place of business of the company responsible for the product. The FPLA Rules, 16 CFR parts 500-503, specify how manufacturers, packagers, and distributors of “consumer commodities” must do this.

    Burden Statement

    As detailed in the December 16, 2014 Notice, the FTC estimates cumulative annual burden on affected entities to be 8,015,140 hours and $185,149,734 in labor costs. Commission staff believes that the FPLA Rules impose negligible capital or other non-labor costs, as the affected entities are likely to have the necessary supplies and/or equipment already (e.g., offices and computers) to implement the packaging and labeling disclosure requirements under the FPLA Rules.

    Request for Comment

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 6, 2015.

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 6, 2015. Write “FPLA Rules, PRA Comment, P074200” 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 doesn't 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 doesn't 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, don't include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    If you want the Commission to treat your comment as confidential, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidentiality, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c).3 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

    3 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/fplaregspra2, by following the instructions on the web-based form. When 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 “FPLA Rules, PRA Comment, P074200” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), 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 J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    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 April 6, 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. For supporting documentation and other information underlying the PRA discussion in this Notice, see http://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/PRA/praDashboard.jsp.

    Comments on the information collection requirements subject to review under the PRA should additionally be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, they should be addressed to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail, however, are subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. Thus, comments instead should be sent by facsimile to (202) 395-5806.

    David C. Shonka, Principal Deputy General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05194 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30-Day-15-14LA] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    Annual Survey of Colorectal Cancer Control Activities Conducted by States and Tribal Organizations—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    In July 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, funded the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) for a 5-year period. The purpose of the CRCCP is to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to increase population-level screening rates to 80% and, subsequently, to reduce CRC incidence and mortality. The current awardees are 25 states and 4 tribal organizations.

    The CRCCP includes two program components: (1) CRC screening of low-income, uninsured and underinsured people (screening provision) and (2) implementation of interventions to increase population-level screening rates (screening promotion).

    As a comprehensive, organized screening program, the CRCCP supports activities including program management, partnership development, public education and targeted outreach, screening and diagnostic services, patient navigation, quality assurance and quality improvement, professional development, data management and utilization, and program monitoring and evaluation. For clinical service delivery, grantees fund health care providers in their state/territory/tribe to deliver colorectal cancer screening, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment referrals for those diagnosed with cancer.

    An annual survey of CRCCP grantees was fielded from 2011-2013 through the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network. The survey was found to be useful by CDC and the grantees (which received feedback reports). For example, after the each survey administration, CDC was able to tailor sessions at the Program Director's meeting to the needs of grantees that had been expressed during last year's information collection. DCPC has decided to continue the data collection, and is being supported through the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors. CDC's proposed survey builds on previous information collections conducted from 2011-2013 through the CPCRN.

    Questions are of various types including dichotomous and multiple response. All information is to be collected electronically through the web-based survey. The estimated burden per response is 75 minutes.

    This assessment will enable CDC to gauge its progress in meeting CRCCP program goals, identify implementation activities, monitor program transition to efforts aimed at impacting population-based screening, identify technical assistance needs of state, tribe and territorial health department cancer control programs, and identify implementation models with potential to expand and transition to new settings to increase program impact and reach. The assessment will identify successful activities that should be maintained, replicated, or expanded as well as provide insight into areas that need improvement.

    OMB approval is requested for three years. Participation is voluntary for CRCCP awardees and there are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 36.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hrs.)
  • Colorectal Cancer Control Program Directors or Managers Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) Grantee Survey of Program Implementation 29 1 75/60
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05211 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.

    DATES:

    Comments on this ICR should be received no later than April 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, including the Information Collection Request Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at [email protected] or call (301) 443-1984.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Information Collection Request Title: Voluntary Partner Surveys to Implement Executive Order 12862 in the Health Resources and Services Administration.

    OMB No. 0915-0212—Extension.

    Abstract: In response to Executive Order 12862, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) proposes to conduct voluntary customer surveys of its partners to assess strengths and weaknesses in program services and processes. HRSA partners are typically state or local governments, health care facilities, health care consortia, health care providers, and researchers. HRSA is requesting a generic approval from OMB to conduct the partner surveys.

    Partner surveys to be conducted by HRSA might include, for example, online or telephone surveys of grantees to determine satisfaction with grant processes or technical assistance provided by a contractor, or in-class evaluation forms completed by providers who receive training from HRSA grantees, to measure satisfaction with the training experience. Results of these surveys will be used to plan and redirect resources and efforts as needed to improve services and processes.

    Focus groups may also be used to gain partner input into the design of mail and telephone surveys. Focus groups, in-class evaluation forms, mail surveys, and telephone surveys are expected to be the preferred data collection methods.

    A generic approval allows HRSA to conduct a limited number of partner surveys without a full-scale OMB review of each survey. If generic approval is approved, information on each individual partner survey will not be published in the Federal Register.

    Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden—Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    In-class evaluations 40,000 1 40,000 .05 2,000 Mail/Telephone/Online Surveys 12,000 1 12,000 .25 3,000 Focus groups 250 1 250 1.5 375 Total 52,250 1 52,250 .103 5,375
    Jackie Painter, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05187 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-1557, CMS-10531 and CMS-10535] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, and to allow a second opportunity for public comment on the notice. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer April 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806 or Email: [email protected]

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Survey Report Form for Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) and Supporting Regulations; Use: The form is used to report surveyor findings during a CLIA survey. For each type of survey conducted (i.e., initial certification, recertification, validation, complaint, addition/deletion of specialty/subspecialty, transfusion fatality investigation, or revisit inspections) the Survey Report Form incorporates the requirements specified in the CLIA regulations. Form Number: CMS-1557 (OMB control number: 0938-0544); Frequency: Biennially; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions, State, Local or Tribal Governments and Federal Government); Number of Respondents: 19,051; Total Annual Responses: 9,526; Total Annual Hours: 4,763. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Kathleen Todd at 410-786-3385).

    2. Type of Information Collection Request: New collection (Request for a new OMB control number); Title of Information Collection: Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair (TMVR) National Coverage Decision (NCD); Use: The data collection is required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) National Coverage Determination (NCD) entitled, “Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair (TMVR)”. The TMVR device is only covered when specific conditions are met including that the heart team and hospital are submitting data in a prospective, national, audited registry. The data includes patient, practitioner and facility level variables that predict outcomes such as all-cause mortality and quality of life.

    We find that the Society of Thoracic Surgery/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy (STS/ACC TVT) Registry, one registry overseen by the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, meets the requirements specified in the NCD on TMVR. The TVT Registry will support a national surveillance system to monitor the safety and efficacy of the TMVR technologies for the treatment of mitral regurgitation (MR). The data will also include the variables on the eight item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-10) to assess heath status, functioning and quality of life. In the KCCQ, an overall summary score can be derived from the physical function, symptoms (frequency and severity), social function and quality of life domains. For each domain, the validity, reproducibility, responsiveness and interpretability have been independently established. Scores are transformed to a range of 0-100, in which higher scores reflect better health status.

    The conduct of the STS/ACC TVT Registry and the KCCQ-10 is pursuant to section 1142 of the Social Security Act (the ACT) that describes the authority of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Under section 1142, research may be conducted and supported on the outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures to identify the manner in which disease, disorders, and other health conditions can be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically. Section 1862(a)(1)(E) of the Act allows Medicare to cover under coverage with evidence development (CED) certain items or services for which the evidence is not adequate to support coverage under section 1862(a)(1)(A) and where additional data gathered in the context of a clinical setting would further clarify the impact of these items and services on the health of beneficiaries.

    The data collected and analyzed in the TVT Registry will be used to determine if TMVR is reasonable and necessary (e.g., improves health outcomes) for Medicare beneficiaries under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the ACT. Furthermore, data from the Registry will assist the medical device industry and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in surveillance of the quality, safety and efficacy of new medical devices to treat mitral regurgitation. For purposes of the TMVR NCD, the TVT Registry has contracted with the Data Analytic Centers to conduct the analyses. In addition, data will be made available for research purposes under the terms of a data use agreement that only provides de-identified datasets. Form Number: CMS-10531(OMB control number: 0938-NEW); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other for-profits); Number of Respondents: 4,000; Total Annual Responses: 16,000; Total Annual Hours: 5,600. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Roya Lotfi at 410-786-4072).

    3. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Employer Notification to HHS of its Objection to Providing Coverage for Contraceptive Services; Use: The proposed rules titled “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act” (79 FR 51118), if finalized as proposed, would require each qualifying closely-held, for-profit entity seeking to be treated as an eligible organization to provide notification of its religious objection to coverage of all or a subset of contraceptive services. Issuers and third party administrators providing or arranging payments for contraceptive services for participants and beneficiaries in plans of eligible organizations would be required to meet the notice requirements as set forth in the 2013 final regulations, requiring them to provide notice of the availability of separate payments for contraceptive services to participants and beneficiaries in the eligible organizations' plans (78 FR 39870, 39880 (July 2, 2013)).

    The interim final regulations titled “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act” (79 FR 51092) continue to allow eligible organizations that have religious objections to providing contraceptive coverage to notify an issuer or third party administrator using EBSA Form 700, as set forth in the 2013 final regulations. In addition, these interim final regulations permit an alternative process under which an eligible organization may notify HHS of its religious objection to coverage of all or a subset of contraceptive services.

    Form Number: CMS-10535 (OMB control number: 0938-1248); Frequency: Once; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other for-profits and not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 61; Number of Responses: 61; Total Annual Hours: 51. (For policy questions regarding this collection, contact Usree Bandyopadhyay at 410-786-6650.)

    Dated: March 2, 2015. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05165 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-10464] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information (including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information) and to allow 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by May 5, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:

    1. Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for “Comment or Submission” or “More Search Options” to find the information collection document(s) that are accepting comments.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address:

    CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier/OMB Control Number ___, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Contents

    This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES).

    CMS-10464 Agent/Broker Data Collection in Federally Facilitated Health Insurance Exchanges

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

    Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Agent/Broker Data Collection in Federally Facilitated Health Insurance Exchanges; Use: We collect personally identifiable information from agents/brokers to register them with the FFM and permit them to assist individuals and employers in enrolling in the FFM. We use this collection of information to ensure agents/brokers possess the basic knowledge required to enroll individuals and SHOP employers/employees through the Marketplaces. Agents/brokers will use CMS or third-party systems to enter identifying information and register with the FFM. As a component of registration, agents/brokers are required to complete online training courses through a CMS or third-party Learning Management System (LMS). Upon completion of their applications and training requirements, agents/brokers will be required to attest to their agreement to adhere to FFM standards and requirements through a CMS or third-party LMS. Form Number: CMS-10464 (OMB Control Number 0938-1204); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other for-profits); Number of Respondents: 172,525; Total Annual Responses: 172,525; Total Annual Hours: 72,460. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Daniel Brown at 301-492-5146).

    Dated: March 2, 2015. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05166 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Harmonizing the Health and Retirement Study (HRS).

    Date: March 18, 2015.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Kimberly Firth, Ph.D., National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7702, [email protected]

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: March 2, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05172 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of General Medical Sciences Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Review of P20 Research Training Grant Applications.

    Date: March 26, 2015.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institute of General Medical Sciences, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, 3An.12, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Lisa A. Dunbar, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3An.12F, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-2849, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Review of P50 Research Training Grant Applications.

    Date: March 31, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Room 3An.12, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Lisa A. Dunbar, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3An.12F, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-2849, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 2, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05171 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Service Administration Advisory Committee on Interdisciplinary, Community-Based Linkages, Notice for Request for Nominations SUMMARY:

    The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is requesting nominations to fill eleven upcoming vacancies on the Advisory Committee on Interdisciplinary, Community-Based Linkages (ACICBL).

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 294f, section 757 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Advisory Committee is governed by the Federal Advisory Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2) which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees.

    DATES:

    The Agency must receive nominations on or before May 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    All nominations are to be submitted either by mail to Joan Weiss, Ph.D., RN, CRNP, FAAN, Designated Federal Official, ACICBL, Division of Medicine and Dentistry, Bureau of Health Workforce (BHW), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Parklawn Building, Room12C-05, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857 or email to Dr. Joan Weiss at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information, contact Dr. Joan Weiss, Division of Medicine and Dentistry, BHW, by email at [email protected] or telephone at (301) 443-0430. A copy of the current committee membership, charter and reports can be obtained by accessing the Advisory Committee Web site at http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/bhpradvisory/acicbl/index.htm.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the authorities that established the ACICBL and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, HRSA is requesting nominations for eleven committee members. The ACICBL provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) concerning policy, program development, and other matters of significance related to interdisciplinary, community-based training grant programs authorized under sections 750-759, title VII, part D of the PHS Act, as amended. The ACICBL prepares an annual report describing the activities conducted during the fiscal year, identifying findings and developing recommendations to enhance these title VII programs. The annual report is submitted to the Secretary and ranking members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce. The ACICBL develops, publishes, and implements performance measures for programs under this part; develops and publishes guidelines for longitudinal evaluations (as described in section 761(d)(2)) for programs under this part; and recommends appropriation levels for programs under this part.

    The Department of Health and Human Services is requesting a total of eleven nominations for members of the ACICBL from schools that have administered or are currently administering awards from the following programs/areas: Area Health Education Centers (3); Education and Training Relating to Geriatrics (2); Rural Interdisciplinary Training (2); Chiropractic Demonstration Program (1); Preventive and Primary Care Training for Podiatric Physicians (1); and Social Work (2). Among these nominations, students, residents, and/or fellows from these programs are encouraged to apply.

    HRSA has a special interest, and the legislation requires a fair balance between the health professions and members from urban and rural areas, a broad geographic distribution, and the adequate representation of women and minorities. HRSA encourages nominations of qualified candidates from these groups as well as individuals with disabilities.

    To allow the Secretary to choose from a highly qualified list of potential candidates, more than one nomination is requested per open position. Interested persons may nominate one or more qualified persons for membership. Self-nominations are also accepted. Nominations must be typewritten. The following information should be included in the package of materials submitted for each individual being nominated for consideration: (1) A letter of nomination that clearly states the name and affiliation of the nominee, the basis for the nomination (i.e., specific attributes that qualify the nominee for service in this capacity), a statement that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Committee and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude the Committee membership—potential candidates will be asked to provide detailed information concerning such matters as financial holdings, consultancies, research grants, and/or contracts to permit an evaluation of possible sources of conflicts of interest; (2) the nominator's name, address, and daytime telephone number, and the home/or work address, telephone number, and email address of the individual being nominated; (3) a current copy of the nominee's curriculum vitae; and (4) a statement of interest from the nominee to support experience working with title VII interdisciplinary, community-based training grant programs; expertise in the field; and personal desire in participating on a National Advisory Committee.

    Members will receive a stipend for each official meeting day of the Committee, as well as per diem and travel expenses as authorized by section 5 U.S.C. 5703 for persons employed intermittently in Government service.

    Appointments shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Qualified candidates will be invited to serve a 3-year term.

    Jackie Painter, Director,Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05189 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NEI Center Core Grants for Vision Research.

    Date: March 27, 2015.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Anne E. Schaffner, Ph.D., Chief, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, National Eye Institute, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, MSC 9300, Bethesda, MD 20892-9300, (301) 451-2020, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.867, Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 2, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05169 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Service Administration Council on Graduate Medical Education; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:

    Name: Council on Graduate Medical Education (COGME).

    Dates and Times: March 12, 2015 (8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. EST); March 13, 2015 (8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. EST).

    Place: In-person meeting, webinar, and conference call format.

    Status: The meeting will be open to the public.

    Purpose: The COGME provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and to Congress on a range of issues including the supply and distribution of physicians in the United States, current and future physician shortages or excesses, issues relating to foreign medical school graduates, the nature and financing of medical education training, and the development of performance measures and longitudinal evaluation of medical education programs.

    The COGME members will discuss topics and issues for the 23rd report. The COGME's reports are submitted to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services; the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate; and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives.

    Agenda: The COGME agenda includes an opportunity for members to discuss the 23rd report on Graduate Medical Education (GME) innovations. The COGME will review current recommendations for reform; examine and document innovations in GME financing and architecture; and make targeted recommendations to support these innovations as appropriate. GME architecture is defined as changes in the structure of GME training programs to enhance the efficiency of training, account for changes in medicine, and address physician workforce needs, while also maintaining the quality of medical education. Examples include the combined, shortened medical school to primary care residency programs and the integrated vascular surgery tracks which both reduce the total number of years of training by 1 year. Innovations in GME architecture—Committee Discussion Questions include:

    • What are examples of innovations in streamlining the GME architecture to increase the throughput and cost efficiencies of GME, in order to reduce the overall length and cost of training?

    • How can medical education technology be leveraged in the transformation and innovation in GME?

    • What are the potential regulatory and licensing challenges from such changes, and how can they be mitigated?

    The official agenda will be available 2 days prior to the meeting on the HRSA Web site at http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/bhpradvisory/cogme/index.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Requests to make oral comments or provide written comments to the COGME should be sent to Dr. Joan Weiss, Designated Federal Official, using the address and phone number below. Individuals who plan to participate on the conference call or webinar should notify Dr. Weiss at least 3 days prior to the meeting, using the address and phone number below. Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments. Interested parties should refer to the meeting subject as the HRSA Council on Graduate Medical Education.

    The conference call-in number is (800) 369-1867. The passcode is: 8803797. The webinar link is https://hrsa.connectsolutions.com/cac_committee_meeting/.

    As this meeting will be a combined format of both in-person, webinar, and conference call members of the public, and interested parties who wish to participate “in-person” should make an immediate request by emailing their first name, last name, and contact email to the Designated Federal Official for the committee, Dr. Joan Weiss, using the address and phone number below. Space is limited. Due to the fact that this meeting will be held within a federal government building and public entrance to such facilities require prior planning, access will be granted upon request only and will be on a first come, first served basis. The logistical challenges of scheduling this meeting hindered an earlier publication of this meeting notice.

    Contact: Anyone requesting information regarding the COGME should contact Dr. Joan Weiss, Designated Federal Official within the Bureau of Health Workforce, Health Resources and Services Administration, in one of three ways: (1) Send a request to the following address: Dr. Joan Weiss, Designated Federal Official, Bureau of Health Workforce, Health Resources and Services Administration, Parklawn Building, Room 12C-05, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857; (2) call (301) 443-0430; or (3) send an email to [email protected]

    Jackie Painter, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05188 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Neurodegenerative Disorders and Glial Biology.

    Date: March 27, 2015.

    Time: 11:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Christine A. Piggee, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4186, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0657, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Mapping the Conformational Cycle of Transmembrane Transporters.

    Date: April 1-2, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Nuria E. Assa-Munt, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4164, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-1323, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Hematology and Vascular Diseases.

    Date: April 1-2, 2015.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Ai-Ping Zou, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4118, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-408-9497, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Topics in Virology.

    Date: April 1, 2015.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Richard G. Kostriken, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3192, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 240-519-7808, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Molecular Neurodegeneration and Signaling.

    Date: April 1, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Carol Hamelink, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4192, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 213-9887, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Biochemistry.

    Date: April 1, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Richard D. Crosland, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4190, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1220, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics.

    Date: April 2-3, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: David R. Jollie, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4150, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1722, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Cell Biology.

    Date: April 2-3, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: David Balasundaram, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5189, MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1022, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Urology.

    Date: April 2, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Martha Garcia, Ph.D., Scientific Reviewer Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2186, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1243, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Gastrointestinal Physiology and Pathophysiology.

    Date: April 2, 2015.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Bonnie L Burgess-Beusse, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2182, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1783, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR13-309-311: Translational Research in Pediatric and Obstetric Pharmacology and Therapeutics.

    Date: April 2, 2015.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Michael Knecht, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6176, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1046, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Molecular Neuroscience: Mechanisms and Pathways.

    Date: April 2, 2015.

    Time: 12:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Laurent Taupenot, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4188, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1203, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 2, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05173 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary [Document Identifier: HHS-OS-0990-New-60D] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, announces plans to submit a new Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting that ICR to OMB, OS seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.

    DATES:

    Comments on the ICR must be received on or before May 5, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or by calling (202) 690-6162.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information Collection Clearance staff, [email protected] or (202) 690-6162.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier HHS-OS-0990-new-60D for reference.

    Information Collection Request Title: Midwest HIV Prevention and Pregnancy Planning Initiative (MHPPPI).

    Abstract: HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH)/Office of Women's Health (OWH) is seeking an approval on a new information collection request by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the program office initiatives on the evaluation of the MHPPPI will be conducted by the AIDS Foundation of Chicago's (AFC) internal Research, Evaluation and Data Services (REDS) department, which specializes in documenting, evaluating and analyzing the process, impact and outcomes of health programs. The evaluation framework for MHPPPI includes process monitoring, impact evaluation, outcome evaluation and dissemination. The impact evaluation will be informed by an initial climate survey of a sample of medical providers within the Midwest to develop a conservative baseline estimate of the counterfactual model. The counterfactual model will postulate what would have happened without the intervention. The impact evaluation will also document and analyze the degree to which services are integrated in medical settings based on change agent surveys administered through participating trainees. The outcome evaluation will assess changes that occurred in each domain as a result of the intervention, including knowledge, attitudes and behaviors related to the specific training content. The overall evaluation goal is to assess whether or not MHPPPI:

    (1) Increased the knowledge of providers,

    (2) Facilitated the integration of pregnancy planning into the care of HIV-positive women/women with HIV-positive partners, and

    (3) Increased access to innovative HIV prevention options in communities with high HIV prevalence.

    Likely Respondents:

    ○ HIV Primary Care Providers Anyone who provides primary HIV care to persons of reproductive age (15-49). ○ Reproductive Health Care Providers Anyone who provides reproductive health care to HIV+ persons or HIV- persons with HIV+ partners. ○ HIV-positive and HIV-negative women receiving reproductive health care Total Estimated Annualized Burden—Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    Provider Survey 300 1 15/60 75 Patient Qualitative Interview 20 1 1 20 Provider Qualitative Interview 20 1 1 20 Total 105
    Darius Taylor, Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05120 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Review of K99 Research Training Grant Applications.

    Date: March 11, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Rd. NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Lee Warren Slice, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3An.12E, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0807, [email protected]

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 2, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05170 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2015-0049] Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee will meet to discuss various issues related to the training and fitness of merchant marine personnel. This meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee working groups are scheduled to meet on March 18, 2015, from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m., and the full Committee is scheduled to meet on March 19, 2015, from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. Written comments for distribution to Committee members and for inclusion on the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee Web site must be submitted on or before March 11, 2015. Please note that this meeting may adjourn early if all business is finished. These meetings will be held as scheduled subject to the availability of funds. Anyone interested in attending this meeting may want to contact the Coast Guard before making their travel and hotel reservations. Please contact either Mr. Davis Breyer at [email protected] or Mr. Mark Gould at [email protected] to confirm that the meeting will be held on these dates or if the meeting has been re-scheduled.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Committee will meet in the St. Charles Ballroom B of the Astor Crowne Plaza Hotel, 739 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA 70130. For further information about the Astor Crowne Plaza Hotel, contact Ms. Angela Eckles at 504-962-0500 ext. 8004 or via email at [email protected] The hotel Web site can also be viewed at www.astorneworleans.com.

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance, please contact Mr. Davis Breyer as indicated in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below.

    Hotel Reservations: A block of rooms has been reserved at a group rate from Tuesday, March 17 through Thursday, March 19, 2015 at the Astor Crowne Plaza Hotel for the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee meeting attendees. Availability is limited. To make a reservation please visit the following Web site: https://aws.passkey.com/event/12834866/owner/10756/home Select “attendee” from the dropdown menu.

    If you plan on attending the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee meeting being held March 16-17, 2015 immediately before the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee meeting, a separate hotel reservation will need to be made under a different block. To make a reservation for the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee meeting please visit the following Web site: https://aws.passkey.com/event/12834543/owner/10756/landing. To secure the group rate, reservations under both committee blocks must be made no later March 13, 2015.

    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the Committee and working groups as listed in the “Agenda” section below. Written comments must be identified by Docket No. USCG-2015-0049 and submitted by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments (preferred method to avoid delays in processing).

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: 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.

    Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

    Instructions: All submissions must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    Docket: For access to the docket to read documents or comments related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov, enter the docket number in the “Search” field and follow the instructions on the Web site.

    Public oral comment periods will be held each day. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that the public oral comment periods may end before the prescribed ending time following the last call for comments. Contact Mr. Davis Breyer as indicated below to register as a speaker.

    This notice may be viewed in our online docket, USCG-2015-0049, at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Davis Breyer, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee, telephone 202-372-1445, or at [email protected] If you have any questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826 or 1-800-647-5527.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix).

    The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee was established under the Secretary's authority in section 871 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Title 6, United States Code, section 451, and chartered under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Committee acts solely in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security through the Commandant of the Coast Guard and the Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards on matters relating to personnel in the U.S. merchant marine, including but not limited to training, qualifications, certification, documentation, and fitness standards. The Committee will advise, consult with, and make recommendations reflecting its independent judgment to the Secretary.

    A copy of all meeting documentation is available at https://homeport.uscg.mil by using these key strokes: Missions; Port and Waterways Safety; Advisory Committees; MERPAC; and then use the announcements key. Alternatively, you may contact Mr. Davis Breyer as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    Agenda Day 1

    The agenda for the March 18, 2015, meeting is as follows:

    (1) The full Committee will meet briefly to discuss the working groups' business/task statements, which are listed under paragraph 2(a)-(d) below.

    (2) Working groups will address the following task statements which are available for viewing at http://homeport.uscg.mil/merpac:

    (a) Task Statement 30, Utilizing Military Education, Training and Assessment for the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) and U.S. Coast Guard Certifications;

    (b) Task Statement 58, Communication between External Stakeholders and the Mariner Credentialing Program, as it Relates to the National Maritime Center;

    (c) Task Statement 84, Correction of Merchant Mariner Credentials issued with Clear Errors; and

    (d) Task Statement 87, Review of Policy Documents Providing Guidance on the Implementation of the December 24, 2013 International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping and Changes to National Endorsements Rulemaking.

    (3) Public comment period.

    (4) Reports of working groups. At the end of the day, the working groups will report to the full Committee on what was accomplished in their meetings. The full Committee will not take action on these reports on this date. Any official action taken as a result of this working group meeting will be taken on day 2 of the meeting.

    (5) Adjournment of meeting.

    Day 2

    The agenda for the March 19, 2015, full Committee meeting is as follows:

    (1) Introduction;

    (2) Remarks from Coast Guard Leadership;

    (3) Designated Federal Officer announcements;

    (4) Roll call of Committee members and determination of a quorum;

    (5) Reports from the following working groups;

    (a) Task Statement 30, Utilizing Military Education, Training and Assessment for the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) and U.S. Coast Guard Certifications;

    (b) Task Statement 58, Communication between External Stakeholders and the Mariner Credentialing Program, as it Relates to the National Maritime Center;

    (c) Task Statement 76, Review of Performance Measures (Assessment Criteria);

    (d) Task Statement 77, Development of Performance Measures (Assessment Criteria);

    (e) Task Statement 78, Consideration of the International Labour Organization's Maritime Labour Convention, 2006;

    (f) Task Statement 80, Develop training guidelines for mariners employed aboard vessels subject to the IGF Code;

    (g) Task Statement 81, Development of Competency Requirements for Vessel Personnel Working Within the Polar Regions;

    (h) Task Statement 84, Correction of Merchant Mariner Credentials issued with Clear Errors; and

    (i) Task Statement 87, Review of Policy Documents Providing Guidance on the Implementation of the December 24, 2013 International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping and Changes to National Endorsements Rulemaking.

    (6) Other items for discussion:

    (a) Report on the Implementation of the 2010 Amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping;

    (b) Report on National Maritime Center activities from the National Maritime Center Commanding Officer, such as the net processing time it takes for mariners to receive their credentials after application submittal;

    (c) Report on Mariner Credentialing Program Policy Division activities, such as its current initiatives and projects;

    (d) Report on International Maritime Organization (IMO)/International Labor Organization (ILO) issues related to the merchant marine industry; and

    (e) Briefings about on-going Coast Guard projects related to personnel in the U.S. merchant marine, including a draft task statement concerning job descriptions for the various billets on merchant vessels.

    (7) Public comment period.

    (8) Discussion of working group recommendations. The Committee will review the information presented on each issue, deliberate on any recommendations presented by the working groups and approve/formulate recommendations for the Department's consideration. Official action on these recommendations may be taken on this date.

    (9) Closing remarks/plans for next meeting.

    (10) Adjournment of meeting.

    A copy of all meeting documentation is available at http://homeport.uscg.mil/merpac.

    Dated: March 3, 2015. J.G. Lantz, Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05368 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2011-0138] Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee will meet to discuss matters relating to medical certification determinations for issuance of licenses, certificates of registry, merchant mariners' documents, medical standards and guidelines for the physical qualifications of operators of commercial vessels, medical examiner education, and medical research. The meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee is scheduled to meet on Monday, March 16 and Tuesday, March 17, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Please note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business. This meeting will be held as scheduled subject to the availability of funds. Anyone interested in attending this meeting may want to contact the Coast Guard before making their travel and hotel reservations. Please contact Lieutenant Ashley Holm, Alternate Designated Federal Officer for the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee, to confirm that the meeting will be held on these dates or if the meeting has been re-scheduled. All submitted written materials, comments, and requests to make oral presentations at the meeting should reach Lieutenant Ashley Holm no later than March 13, 2015. For contact information, please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below. Any written material submitted by the public both before and after the meeting will be distributed to the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee and become part of the public record.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Astor Crowne Plaza Hotel, St. Charles Ballroom B, 739 Canal Street at Bourbon, New Orleans, LA 70130 (www.astorneworleans.com). For further information about the hotel facilities, please contact the front desk at (504) 962-0500.

    For information on services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section as soon as possible. For planning purposes, please notify the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee Alternate Designated Federal Officer of your attendance as soon as possible.

    Hotel Reservations: A block of rooms have been reserved at a group rate from Sunday, March 15 through Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at the Astor Crowne Plaza Hotel for the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee meeting attendees. Availability is limited. To make a reservation please visit the following Web site: https://aws.passkey.com/event/12834543/owner/10756/landing. Select “attendee” from the dropdown menu.

    If you plan on attending the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee meeting being held March 18-19, 2015 following the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee, a separate hotel reservation will need to be made under a different block. To make a reservation for the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee meeting please visit the following Web site: https://aws.passkey.com/event/12834866/owner/10756/home. To secure the group rate, reservations under both committee blocks must be made no later than March 13, 2015.

    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the committee as listed in the “Agenda” section below. Written comments must be submitted no later than March 13, 2015, in order for committee members to review comments before the meeting, and must be identified by docket number USCG-2011-0138 and submitted by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments (preferred method to avoid delays in processing).

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: 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.

    Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

    Instructions: All submissions must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number for this action. All comments submitted will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    Docket: For access to the docket to read documents or comments related to this Notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov, insert USCG-2011-0138 in the “SEARCH” box, press Enter and then click on the item you wish to view.

    A public comment period will be held on March 16, 2015, from approximately 11 a.m.-11:30 a.m. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 5 minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Additionally, public comment will be sought throughout the meeting as specific issues are discussed by the committee. Contact Lieutenant Ashley Holm as indicated below to register as a speaker.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lieutenant Ashley Holm, Alternate Designated Federal Officer for the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee, at telephone 202-372-1128 or email [email protected] If you have any questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826 or 1-800-647-5527.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 United States Code Appendix. The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee Meeting is authorized by 46 United States Code 7115 and advises the Secretary on matters related to (a) medical certification determinations for issuance of licenses, certificates of registry, and merchant mariners' documents; (b) medical standards and guidelines for the physical qualifications of operators of commercial vessels; (c) medical examiner education; and (d) medical research.

    A copy of all meeting documentation is available at https://homeport.uscg.mil by using these key strokes: Missions; Port and Waterways; Safety Advisory Committees; MEDMAC and then use the announcements key. Alternatively, you may contact Lieutenant Ashley Holm as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    Agenda: Day 1

    The agenda for the March 16, 2015 meeting is as follows:

    (1) Opening remarks from Coast Guard leadership.

    (2) Opening remarks from the Designated Federal Officer.

    (3) Roll call of committee members and determination of a quorum.

    (4) Review of last full committee meeting's minutes.

    (5) Public comments.

    (6) Introduction of new task(s).

    (7) Working Groups addressing the following task statements may meet to deliberate—

    (a) Task Statement 1, Revision of Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 04-08. The Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular can be found at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/, Medical and Physical Guidelines for Merchant Mariner Credentials.

    (b) The Committee will receive new task statements from the Coast Guard, review the information presented on each issue, deliberate and formulate recommendations for the Department's consideration.

    (8) Adjournment of meeting.

    Day 2

    The agenda for the March 17, 2015 meeting is as follows:

    (1) Continue work on Task Statements.

    (2) By mid-afternoon, the Working Groups will report, and if applicable, make recommendations for the full committee to consider for presentation to the Coast Guard. The committee may vote on the working group's recommendations on this date. The public will have an opportunity to speak after each Working Group's Report before the full committee takes any action on each report.

    (3) Closing remarks/plans for next meeting.

    (4) Adjournment of Meeting.

    Dated: March 3, 2015. P.F. Thomas, Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy, United States Coast Guard.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05369 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5831-N-13] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Re-entry Assistance Program AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: April 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email at Colette [email protected] or telephone 202-402-3400. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. This is not a toll-free number. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A.

    The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on December 31, 2014 at 79 FR 78897.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Re-entry Assistance Program.

    OMB Approval Number: 2577-New.

    Type of Request: New collection.

    Form Number: N/A

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The Reentry Assistance Program Information Collection represents a new information request. The OMB approval number for this collection is pending. The information provided by the eligible applicants will be reviewed and evaluated by HUD. The information to be collected by HUD will be used to preliminarily rate applications, to determine eligibility for the Reentry Assistance Program Grant Competition and to establish grant amounts. The Reentry Assistance Program Grant Competition Application will be used to determine eligibility and funding for recipients. Respondents of this information collection will be public housing agencies and/or their partners. Forms for this information collection are under development, however it is anticipated that applicants will provide quantitative and qualitative data as well as narrative information for evaluation.

    Respondents (i.e. affected public): State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Form Number of
  • respondents
  • Response/year Total annual responses Hours per
  • response
  • Total hours
    SF424-Application for Federal Assistance 2,500 1 2,500 0.5 1,250 SF425-Federal Financial Report 200 1 200 1.0 200 HUD 96011—Facsimile Transmittal (OMB No. 2535-0118) 200 1 200 1.0 200 Reentry Assistance Application—Narrative (Strategy, Approach, Match, Budget) 200 1 200 80.0 16,000 HUD 96010—Logic Model (OMB No. 2535-0114) 200 1 200 40.0 8,000 HUD2991 (Certification of Consistency with the Consolidated Plan (OMB No. 2506-0112) 200 1 200 1.0 200 Partnership Agreement between PHA and partners 200 1 200 40.0 8,000 Subtotal Application: 163.5 33,850 HUD-1044—Grant Agreement 17.0 1.0 17.0 1.0 17 Quarterly Performance Report (Narrative and Data) 17.0 4.0 68.0 4.0 272 HUD27061 Race and Ethnic Data 17.0 1.0 17.0 2.0 34 Subtotal (Program Reporting/Recordkeeping 7.0 323 Total Burden 170.5 34,173
    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.

    Dated: February 27, 2015. Colette Pollard, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05283 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5828-N-10] Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

    Dated: February 26, 2015. Brian P. Fitzmaurice, Director, Division of Community Assistance, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05062 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5831-N-14] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Inspector Candidate Assessment Questionnaire AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: April 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-3400. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. This is not a toll-free number. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in section A.

    The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on December 31, 2014 at 79 FR 78899.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Inspector Candidate Assessment Questionnaire.

    OMB Approval Number: 2577-0243.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Form Number: Form HUD 50002A and Form HUD 50002B-HFA

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: To meet the requirements of the Uniform Physical Condition Standards (UPCS), the Physical Condition of Multifamily Properties and the Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) rules, the Department conducts physical condition inspections of approximately 14,000 multifamily and public housing properties annually. To conduct these inspections, HUD uses contract inspectors that are trained and certified in the Uniform Physical Condition Standards protocol by HUD. Individuals who wish to be trained and certified by HUD are requested to electronically submit the questionnaire via the Internet. The questionnaire provides HUD with basic knowledge of an individual's inspection skills and abilities. As part of aligning REAC inspections, state Housing Finance Agencies may also fill out the form for informational purposes only.

    Respondents: Applicants to the UPCS inspector certification program and state HFA staff.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 605.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 605.

    Frequency of Response: To apply to UPCS training.

    Average Hours per Response: 15 to 20 minutes depending on the respondent.

    Total Estimated Burdens: 192 hours.

    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.

    Dated: February 27, 2015. Colette Pollard, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05284 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5831-N-12] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application for Resident Opportunity & Self Sufficiency (ROSS) Grant Forms AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: April 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-3400. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. This is not a toll-free number. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A.

    The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on December 31, 2014 at 79 FR 78898.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Application for the Resident Opportunities and Self Sufficiency (ROSS) Grant Forms.

    OMB Approval Number: 2577-0229.

    Type of Request: Revision of currently approved collection.

    Form Number: HUD 52752; HUD 52753; HUD-52754, HUD-52755; HUD-57268; HUD-52769; HUD-96010; SF-424; HUD-2880; HUD-2990; HUD-2991; SF-LLL, HUD-2993, HUD-2994-A.

    Revision is being requested specifically for two forms: the HUD form 52768 (ROSS SERVICE COORDINATORS—FUNDING REQUEST) has been revised to add clarifying questions regarding two application types: resident associations and nonprofit organizations and the form has been somewhat reformatted. Minor formatting changes were made to the HUD form 52769 (ROSS SERVICE COORDINATORS—NEEDS and SERVICE PARTNERS). The FSS Funding Request form (Form 52651) was removed from the collection.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The forms are used to evaluate capacity and eligibility of applicants to the ROSS program.

    Respondents (i.e. affected public): Public Housing Authorities, tribes/TDHEs, public housing resident associations, and nonprofit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 400.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 400.

    Frequency of Response: 1.

    Average Hours per Response: .5.5 hours.

    Total Estimated Burdens: 2,200.

    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: February 27, 2015. Colette Pollard, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05272 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5830-N-01] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Production of Material or Provision of Testimony by HUD in Response to Demands in Legal Proceedings Among Private Litigants AGENCY:

    Office of the General Counsel, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: May 5, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected] for a copy of the proposed forms or other available information. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Allen Villafuerte, Managing Attorney, Office of Litigation, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10258, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone (202 708-0300) (this is not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Production of Material or Provision of Testimony in Response to Demands in Legal Proceedings Among Private Litigants.

    OMB Approval Number: The OMB number will be change from 2501-0022 to 2510-Pending.

    Type of Request: Reinstatement of collection.

    Form Number: None. Please see 24 CFR 15.203.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use:

    Section 15.203 of HUD's regulations in 24 CFR specify the manner in which demands for documents and testimony from the Department should be made. Providing the information specified in 24 CFR 15.203 allows the Department to more promptly identify documents and testimony which a requestor may be seeking and determine whether the Department should produce such documents and testimony.

    Members of affected public: All types of entities, private and non-profit organizations, individuals and households.

    Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response:

    Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of
  • response
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • 106 1 1.5 159
    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: March 2, 2015. Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05106 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [145A21000DDAAK3000000/ADT00000.00000] Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community—Amendment to Alcoholic Beverage Control Ordinance AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice publishes the technical amendment to the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Alcoholic Beverage Control Ordinance, Chapter 14, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Code of Ordinances, to clarify the authority of the Community Regulatory Agency to share information with the Arizona Department of Safety and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the purpose of conducting criminal background checks on liquor license applicants and holders. The amended Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Alcohol Beverage Control Ordinance, Chapter 14 of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Code of Ordinances was last published in the Federal Register on July 13, 2010 (75 FR 39960). Sections 14-5(c)(4), 14-9(g), 14-18(o) and (t) of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Code of Ordinances were repealed and replaced in their entirety, and a new Section 14-12, was added via publication in the Federal Register on July 24, 2013 (78 FR 44590). Section 14-5(b) of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Code of Ordinances shall be amended to include Section 14-5(b)(9).

    DATES:

    This Amendment is effective 30 days after March 6, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Sharlot Johnson, Tribal Government Services Officer, Western Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2600 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85004, Phone: (602) 379-6786; Fax: (602) 379-4100; or Ms. Laurel Iron Cloud, Chief, Division of Tribal Government Services, Office of Indian Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street NW., MS-4513-MIB, Washington, DC 20240; Telephone (202) 513-7641.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, Public Law 83-277, 67 Stat. 586, 18 U.S.C. 1161, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983), the Secretary of the Interior shall certify and publish in the Federal Register notice of adopted liquor ordinances for the purpose of regulating liquor transactions in Indian country. The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community adopted this amendment to the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Alcohol Beverage Control Ordinance, Chapter 14 of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Code of Ordinances by Ordinance Number: SRO-439-2014 on March 5, 2014.

    This notice is published in accordance with the authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. I certify that the Community Council duly adopted this amendment to the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Alcohol Beverage Control Ordinance, Chapter 14 of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Code of Ordinances on March 5, 2014.

    Dated: February 24, 2015. Kevin K. Washburn, Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

    The amendment to the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Alcohol Beverage Control Ordinance, Chapter 14 of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Code of Ordinances reads as follows:

    Section 14-5(b) of the Community Code of Ordinances shall be amended to include a clarifying provision at 14-5(b)(9) at the end of that subsection, which shall be enacted:

    Sec. 14-5(b)(9)

    (9) To conduct a state and federal criminal history check pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute 41-1750 and Public Law 92-544 on all applicants for a license under this Chapter; and that all applicants must submit a full set of fingerprints to the Office who shall submit the fingerprints to the Arizona Department of Public Safety, who may then exchange the fingerprint data with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

    [FR Doc. 2015-05206 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-4J-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLCAD08000.L12200000.DS0000.15XL1109AF.LXSSB0010000] Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Plan Amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan in the West Mojave Planning Area, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, CA AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft Land Use Plan Amendment and Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the West Mojave Route Network Project (WMRNP) for the West Mojave (WEMO) Planning Area of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) and by this notice is announcing the opening of the comment period.

    DATES:

    To ensure that comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the Draft Land Use Plan Amendment/Draft Supplemental EIS within 90 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its notice of the Draft Land Use Plan Amendment/Draft SEIS in the Federal Register. The BLM will announce future meetings or hearings and any other public participation activities at least 15 days in advance through public notices, media releases, and/or mailings.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments related to the WMRNP by any of the following methods:

    Web site: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/cdd/west_mojave__wemo.html.

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: 951-697-5299; Attn: WMRNP Plan Amendment.

    Mail: Bureau of land Management, California Desert District, Attn: WMRNP Plan Amendment, 22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, CA 92553

    Copies of the WMRNP Draft Plan Amendment and Draft Supplemental EIS are available in the California Desert District Office at the above address; the Ridgecrest Field Office, 300 S. Richmond Rd., Ridgecrest, CA 93555; and the Barstow Field Office, 2601 Barstow Road, Barstow CA 92311. Copies are also available online at the above address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Edy Seehafer, WMRNP Manager, telephone 760-252-6021; address 2601 Barstow Road, Barstow, CA 92311; email [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The West Mojave Route Network Project (WMRNP) will adopt transportation and travel strategy and designate routes on public lands in the WEMO Planning Area. The WEMO Planning Area covers 9.4 million acres of the CDCA in the western portion of the Mojave Desert in southern California, including parts of San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Kern, and Inyo Counties. The WMRNP applies to the 3.1 million acres of public lands within the WEMO Planning Area. In March, 2006, the BLM signed the Record of Decision (ROD) for the WEMO Plan/Amendment to the CDCA Plan. In January 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California partially remanded the 2006 WEMO Plan Amendment ROD to the BLM and directed the BLM to amend the CDCA Plan for travel management and reconsider route designation throughout the WEMO Planning Area, as well as other specified issues in the 2006 WEMO Plan (Center for Biological Diversity v. US Bureau of Land Management Order Re: Remedy [N.D. Cal. Jan 28, 2011]). The Court's decision identified issues with (1) the invalidation of the “decision tree” instrument used to evaluate and designate routes, (2) the authorization of OHV routes that were not in existence in 1980, which was inconsistent with the governing land use plan, (3) the lack of a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action, including an inadequate discussion of the No Action alternative, and (4) the inadequate analysis of impacts from the route network and the grazing program to specific resource values, including soils, cultural resources, certain biological resources, and air quality.

    On September 13, 2011, the BLM issued a Notice of Intent (amended May 13, 2013), inviting comments on the proposed scope and content of the WMRNP. The WMRNP includes a land-use plan amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan for Livestock Grazing, Recreation, and Motor Vehicle Access Elements for the WEMO Planning Area, an associated travel management framework, and activity-plan level route designations and implementation strategies. The lands covered in the WMRNP are those that are within livestock grazing allotments or designated as “Limited” to designated routes for motorized access. Areas “Closed” to motorized access are not proposed for change in this plan amendment, and are not within the scope of the planning effort.

    The 9.4 million-acre WEMO Planning Area includes several large Department of Defense facilities covering almost 3 million acres, a portion of one National Park, 3 million acres of private lands, and approximately 100,000 acres of State lands, including Red Rock Canyon State Park. The planning area is also adjacent to three other National Parks/Preserves and four National Forests. Much of the planning area is managed as part of the BLM's National Landscape Conservation System, including 18 wilderness areas, three wilderness study areas and portions of the Pacific Crest Trail and the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. The planning area also includes 41 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), seven National Register Archaeological or Historic Districts, and four Critical Habitat Units for the federally-listed desert tortoise. Four of the ACECs were established as Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMAs), covering most of the desert tortoise critical habitat units, for the express purpose of conservation of desert tortoise.

    The planning area also includes eight OHV Open Areas covering 271,661 acres. No changes are proposed to these OHV Open Areas or their boundaries; however, the OHV Open Areas provide major points of ingress to and egress from adjacent areas “Limited” to designated routes access public lands.

    The BLM used a public scoping process to determine relevant issues, impacts, and possible alternatives that could influence the scope of the environmental analysis, and to help guide the agency from plan level decision-making to route designation in order to comply with the court order.

    The public raised the following transportation and travel management concerns:

    • The need for a good inventory and accurate information related to the existing environment;

    • documentation and use of the regulatory criteria for route minimization;

    • mitigation for loss of access;

    • sensitive resource protection;

    • maintenance of access for various types of recreational, scientific and other uses;

    • access to private lands;

    • trespass;

    • regional connectivity;

    • improving GIS and on-the-ground information for the public; and

    • other implementation strategies such as signing, monitoring and law enforcement.

    In addition, a substantial number of comments indicated issues and needs associated with specific routes and route areas in the WEMO transportation system, and included recommendations on the designation of specific routes. A few comments were also received on grazing issues and the scope of the supplemental grazing program analysis.

    In response to court concerns and on-the-ground changes since 2006, NEPA considerations focused on cumulative effects of the transportation system alternatives to resource values, particularly air quality, soils, cultural resources, certain biological resources, and certain sensitive species, cumulative effects of grazing, and potential cumulative loss of recreational access opportunities. In response to public input, access considerations focused on maintaining a viable transportation network, diverse recreational opportunities, providing access for specific users, (including rock-hounders, motorcyclists, scientific and educational activities, and non-motorized users), dealing with conflicts between users, and maintaining commercial access needs.

    Plan amendments would address specific CDCA Plan inconsistencies with regulation and BLM policies in the WEMO Planning Area; including amending language that limits the route network to routes that existed in 1980 and travel management guidance for route designations. Changes are proposed to the existing land-use plan to address stopping, parking, and camping adjacent to routes in Limited Access Areas within the WEMO Planning Area, and to establish a regional minimization strategy for the travel route network. Changes are also proposed to the grazing program that would reallocate forage from livestock use to wildlife use and ecosystem function in desert tortoise habitat for inactive allotments or allotments that become vacant. In addition, the Draft considers plan level decisions modifying motorized use on four specific lakebeds, including Cuddeback Lake and competitive motorized use of routes. The Draft also considers various travel management implementation frameworks. Four alternatives are evaluated, including a No Action alternative.

    Finally, the Draft includes activity-level specific route designation alternatives, based on the 43CFR 8342.1 criteria and different thresholds for minimization or closure. The preferred alternative would designate approximately 10,300 miles of routes within the WEMO Planning Area as available for motorized use, approximately130 miles of routes would be available for either non-motorized or non-mechanized use, and approximately 4,400 miles of routes would be closed.

    The preferred alternative also includes a regional mitigation strategy that would limit the extent of off-route stopping and parking throughout the planning area to minimize impacts to undisturbed habitat, enhance watersheds, and protect adjacent sensitive resources. Other measures are based on proximity to sensitive resources, such as riparian systems, that would enhance these resources throughout the planning area.

    The preferred alternative provides for a limited number of designated camping and staging areas to direct intensive use to manageable locations. Finally, the preferred alternative proposes an integrated, community-based implementation strategy that addresses outreach, compliance and enforcement strategy in which partnerships with adjacent communities, users, local Friends and other interest groups, national and State recreational and conservation coalitions, and other interested citizens are a central component.

    Please note that public comments and information submitted including names, street addresses, and email addresses of persons who submit comments will be available for public review and disclosure at the above address during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, BLM cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority:

    40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2.

    Thomas Pogacnik, Deputy State Director, Natural Resources.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05127 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [CACA 049397, LLCAD06000.L51010000.ER0000.LVRWB09B2920.15X] Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Desert Quartzite Solar Project and a Possible Amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, Riverside County, California AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs/South Coast Field Office, Palm Springs, California, together with Riverside County, California, intend to prepare a joint Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which may include an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan, for the Desert Quartzite Solar Project (Project). By this notice, the BLM is announcing the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues related to the EIS/EIR and Plan Amendment (PA).

    DATES:

    This notice initiates the public scoping process for the EIS/EIR and PA. Comments on issues may be submitted in writing until April 6, 2015. The date(s) and location(s) of any scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local news media, newspapers and the BLM Web site at: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/cdd.html. In order to be included in the analysis, all comments must be received prior to the close of the 30-day scoping period or 15 days after the last public meeting, whichever is later. We will provide additional opportunities for public participation as appropriate.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria related to the Project by any of the following methods:

    • email: [email protected]

    • fax: (951) 697-5299.

    • mail: ATTN: Cedric C. Perry, Project Manager, BLM California Desert District Office, 22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, California 92553-9046

    Documents pertinent to this project may be examined at the BLM California Desert District Office at the above address Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cedric C. Perry; telephone—(951) 697-5388; address—BLM California Desert District Office, 22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, CA 92553-9046; Email—[email protected]

    Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-(800)-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The applicant, Desert Quartzite Solar, LLC has requested a right-of-way (ROW) authorization to construct, operate, maintain and decommission a 300 MW alternating current (AC) solar photovoltaic energy-generating facility along with the necessary ancillary facilities including a project substation, access road, transmission lines, realignment of an existing route, operations and maintenance buildings, and lay down areas. The project is proposed on 4,845 acres of public land with the solar field occupying approximately 2,453 acres on lands within the Riverside East Solar Energy Zone (SEZ), southwest of Blythe, California.

    This document provides notice that the BLM Palm Springs/South Coast Field Office and the County of Riverside California intend to jointly prepare an EIS/EIR, which may include a potential CDCA Plan Amendment, for the Project. It also announces the beginning of the scoping process for this effort and seeks public input on environmental issues and potential planning criteria relevant to the Project and any potential plan amendments. The purpose of the public scoping process is to guide the planning process and determine the relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives and mitigation measures.

    Preliminary issues for the environmental analysis and potential plan amendment have been identified by BLM; Federal, State, and local agencies; and, other stakeholders. These issues include: Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions; biological resources, including special status species; cultural resources; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use; lands with wilderness characteristics; noise; recreation; traffic; visual resources; cumulative effects; areas with high potential for renewable energy development; and, identification of opportunities to apply mitigation hierarchy strategies for on-site, regional, and compensatory mitigation, and, appropriate to the size of the project, landscape-level conservation and management actions to achieve resource objectives.

    You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria in writing to the BLM at any public scoping meeting, or by using one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section above. To be most helpful, you should submit comments by the close of the 30-day scoping period or within 15 days after the last public meeting, whichever is later.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. The minutes and list of attendees for each scoping meeting will be available to the public and open for 30 days after the meeting to any participant who wishes to clarify the views he or she expressed.

    The BLM withdrew public lands, including those where the proposed Project is located, in the State of California on July 5, 2013, under Public Land Order 7818 for a period of 20 years for future solar energy development, subject to valid existing rights, from location and entry under the United States mining laws. The lands are open to mineral and geothermal leasing, and mineral material sales.

    The BLM will utilize and coordinate the NEPA scoping process to help fulfill the public involvement process under the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed action will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources. The BLM will also consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency.

    With respect to the potential land use plan amendment, the BLM will evaluate identified issues to be addressed in any potential plan amendment, and will place those issues into one of three categories:

    1. Issues to be resolved in the plan amendment;

    2. Issues to be resolved through policy or administrative action; or

    3. Issues beyond the scope of this plan amendment.

    The BLM will provide an explanation in the Draft EIS and PA as to why an issue was placed in category two or three. The public is also encouraged to help identify any management questions and concerns that should be addressed in the plan. The BLM will work collaboratively with interested parties to identify the management decisions that are best suited to local, regional, and national needs and concerns.

    The BLM will use an interdisciplinary approach to develop the potential plan amendment in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Specialists with expertise in the following disciplines will be involved in the planning process: Rangeland management, minerals and geology, outdoor recreation, archaeology, paleontology, wildlife, lands and realty, hydrology, soils, sociology and economics.

    Authority:

    40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR 1610.2.

    Thomas Pogacnik, Deputy State Director, Natural Resources.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05290 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [15X/A11220000.224100/AAK4004800/AX.480ADM100000] Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation Projects AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of rate adjustments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) owns, or has an interest in, irrigation projects located on or associated with various Indian reservations throughout the United States. We are required to establish irrigation assessment rates to recover the costs to administer, operate, maintain, and rehabilitate these projects. We are notifying you that we have adjusted the irrigation assessment rates at several of our irrigation projects and facilities to reflect current costs of administration, operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: The irrigation assessment rates shown in the tables as final are effective as of January 1, 2014.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For details about a particular BIA irrigation project or facility, please use the tables in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section to contact the regional or local office where the project or facility is located.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A Notice of Proposed Rate Adjustment was published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2014 (79 FR 3862) to propose adjustments to the irrigation assessment rates at several BIA irrigation projects. The public and interested parties were provided an opportunity to submit written comments during the 60-day period that ended March 24, 2014.

    Did the BIA defer or change any proposed rate increases?

    Yes. The proposed notice indicated that Proposed 2014 rate for Duck Valley and Fort Yuma Irrigation Projects was “To Be Determined.” A final rate has been determined and is reflected in the Rate Table. The final rates established here differ from the proposed rates for the following Irrigation projects:

    Project name Rate category Proposed
  • 2014 rate
  • Final
  • 2014 rate
  • Fort Hall Irrigation Project—Michaud Basic—per acre $47.50 $47.00 Fort Peck Irrigation Project Basic—per acre 25.00 26.00 Wind River Irrigation Project—Units 2, 3 and 4 Basic—per acre 22.10 21.00 Wind River Irrigation Project—LeClair District Basic—per acre 28.82 28.80 Wind River Irrigation Project—Riverton Valley Irrigation District Basic—per acre 21.02 21.00 Pine River Irrigation Project Basic—per acre 16.00 15.00
    Did the BIA receive any comments on the proposed irrigation assessment rate adjustments?

    Yes. Written comments were received from the San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District (SCIDD), by letter dated October 31, 2013, to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, related to the proposed rate adjustment for FY 2015 for the San Carlos Irrigation Project. A letter from the Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs dated December 12, 2013, responded to SCIDD's letter.

    What issues were of concern to the commenters?

    Comments received relate specifically to one component of the San Carlos Irrigation Project proposed FY 2015 rate: The planned expenditure for repair of the Coolidge Dam Cylinder Gates.

    The BIA's summary of SCIDD's issue and the BIA's response are provided below.

    Comment: The recommended 2015 assessment of $35 per acre and proposed budget of $3.5 million include a planned expenditure of $1.8 million, or $18 per acre, for the repair of the Coolidge Dam Cylinder Gates. This $1,800,000 was collected in three $500,000 previous payments in 2012, 2013, and 2014, and the 2015 budget proposes an additional collection of $300,000. We now understand that this work will be funded through the BIA Safety of Dams Program.

    Response: The governing documents of the San Carlos Irrigation Project required the operation and maintenance costs for the Project to be paid for by assessments on the lands in the Project. Accordingly, the Project has correctly assessed and collected funds for repair of the Coolidge Dam Cylinder Gates. The BIA Safety of Dams Program is funding an independent engineering review of the designs and cost estimates for the gate repair. The review will produce final engineering designs and drawings which the Project expects to use for the repair work. The Project has reiterated this point to SCIDD at recent water user meetings.

    Does this notice affect me?

    This notice affects you if you own or lease land within the assessable acreage of one of our irrigation projects or if you have a carriage agreement with one of our irrigation projects.

    Where can I get information on the regulatory and legal citations in this notice?

    You can contact the appropriate office(s) stated in the tables for the irrigation project that serves you, or you can use the Internet site for the Government Publishing Office at www.thefederalregister.org.

    What authorizes you to issue this notice?

    Our authority to issue this notice is vested in the Secretary of the Interior by 5 U.S.C. 301 and the Act of August 14, 1914 (38 Stat. 583; 25 U.S.C. 385). The Secretary has in turn delegated this authority to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs under Part 209, Chapter 8.1A, of the Department of the Interior's Departmental Manual.

    Whom can I contact for further information?

    The following tables are the regional and project/agency contacts for our irrigation facilities.

    Project name Project/Agency Contacts Northwest Region Contacts Stanley Speaks, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Northwest Regional Office, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4169, Telephone: (503) 231-6702. Fort Hall Irrigation Project Randy Thompson, Acting Superintendent, David Bollinger, Irrigation Project Manager, Fort Hall Agency, P.O. Box 220, Fort Hall, ID 83203-0220, Telephone: (208) 238-2301. Wapato Irrigation Project Edwin Lewis, Project Administrator, Wapato Irrigation Project, P.O. Box 220, Wapato, WA 98951-0220, Telephone: (509) 877-3155. Rocky Mountain Region Contacts Darryl LaCounte, Acting Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, 316 North 26th Street, Billings, Montana 59101, Telephone: (406) 247-7943. Project Name Agency/Project Contacts Blackfeet Irrigation Project Thedis Crow, Acting Superintendent, Greg Tatsey, Irrigation Project Manager, Box 880, Browning, MT 59417, Telephones: (406) 338-7544, Superintendent, (406) 338-7519, Irrigation Project Manager. Crow Irrigation Project Vianna Stewart, Superintendent, Kyle Varvel, Irrigation Project Manager, P.O. Box 69, Crow Agency, MT 59022, Telephones: (406) 638-2672, Superintendent, (406) 638-2863, Irrigation Project Manager. Fort Belknap Irrigation Project Susan Messerley, Acting Superintendent, Vacant, Irrigation Project Manager, (Project operations & management contracted to Tribes), R.R.1, Box 980, Harlem, MT 59526, Telephones: (406) 353-2901, Superintendent, (406) 353-8454, Irrigation Project Manager (Tribal Office). Fort Peck Irrigation Project Howard Beemer, Superintendent, Huber Wright, Acting Irrigation Project Manager, P.O. Box 637, Poplar, MT 59255, 602 6th Avenue North, Wolf Point, MT 59201, Telephones: (406) 768-5312, Superintendent, (406) 653-1752, Irrigation Project Manager. Wind River Irrigation Project Norma Gourneau, Superintendent Vacant, Irrigation Project Manager, P.O. Box 158, Fort Washakie, WY 82514, Telephones: (307) 332-7810, Superintendent (307) 332-2596, Irrigation Project Manager. Southwest Region Contacts William T. Walker, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Southwest Regional Office, 1001 Indian School Road, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104, Telephone: (505) 563-3100. Pine River Irrigation Project Priscilla Bancroft, Acting Superintendent, Vickie Begay, Irrigation Project Manager, P.O. Box 315, Ignacio, CO 81137-0315, Telephones: (970) 563-4511, Superintendent, (970) 563-9484, Irrigation Project Manager Western Region Contacts Bryan Bowker, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western Regional Office, 2600 N. Central Ave., 4th Floor Mailroom, Phoenix, Arizona 85004, Telephone: (602) 379-6600. Project Name Project/Agency Contacts Colorado River Irrigation Project Kellie Youngbear, Superintendent, Gary Colvin, Irrigation Project Manager, 12124 1st Avenue, Parker, AZ 85344, Telephone: (928) 669-7111. Duck Valley Irrigation Project Joseph McDade, Superintendent, (Project operations & management compacted by the Tribes), 2719 Argent Ave., Suite 4, Elko, NV 89801, Telephone: (775) 738-5165, (208) 759-3100 (Tribal Office). Fort Yuma Irrigation Project Irene Herder, Superintendent, 256 South Second Avenue, Suite D, Yuma, AZ 85364, Telephone: (928) 782-1202. San Carlos Irrigation Project, Indian Works and Joint Works Ferris Begay, Project Manager, Clarence Begay, Irrigation Manager, 13805 N. Arizona Boulevard, Coolidge, AZ 85228, Telephone: (520) 723-6223. Uintah Irrigation Project Bart Stevens, Superintendent, P.O. Box 130, Fort Duchesne, UT 84026, Telephone: (435) 722-4300, Telephone: (435) 722-4341. Walker River Irrigation Project Marilyn Bitsillie, Acting Superintendent, 311 E. Washington Street, Carson City, NV 89701, Telephone: (775) 887-3500. What irrigation assessments or charges are adjusted by this notice?

    The rate table below contains the current rates for all irrigation projects where we recover costs of administering, operating, maintaining, and rehabilitating them. The table also contains the final rates for the 2014 season and subsequent years where applicable. An asterisk immediately following the name of the project notes the irrigation projects where 2014 rates are different from the 2013 rates.

    EN06MR15.000 EN06MR15.001 EN06MR15.002

    * Notes irrigation projects where rates are proposed for adjustment.

    Note #1—The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) rate varies yearly based upon the budget submitted by the LeClair District.

    Note #2—The O&M rate for the Yuma Project, Indian Unit has two components. The first component is the O&M rate established by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the owner and operator of the Project. The BOR rate for 2014 is $89.50/acre. The second component is for the O&M rate established by BIA to cover administrative costs including billing and collections for the Project. The 2014 BIA rate remains unchanged at $1.50/acre.

    Note #3—The FY 2014 rate was established by final notice in the Federal Register on January 23, 2014 (79 FR 3862). The Construction Water Rate Schedule was established by final notice in the Federal Register on January 23, 2014 (79 FR 3862). The FY 2015 rate was proposed by notice in the Federal Register on January 22, 2014 (79 FR 3614). This notice establishes the final rate of $35/acre for FY 2015.

    Note #4—The 2014 O&M rate for the San Carlos Irrigation Project—Indian Works has three components. The first component is the O&M rate established by the San Carlos Irrigation Project—Indian Works, the owner and operator of the Project; this rate is proposed to be $45 per acre. The second component is for the O&M rate established by the San Carlos Irrigation Project—Joint Works and is determined to be $30.00 per acre. The third component is the O&M rate established by the San Carlos Irrigation Project Joint Control Board and is estimated to be $6 per acre.

    Consultation and Coordination With Tribal Governments (Executive Order 13175)

    To fulfill its consultation responsibility to tribes and tribal organizations, BIA communicates, coordinates, and consults on a continuing basis with these entities on issues of water delivery, water availability, and costs of administration, operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of projects that concern them. This is accomplished at the individual irrigation project by Project, Agency, and Regional representatives, as appropriate, in accordance with local protocol and procedures. This notice is one component of our overall coordination and consultation process to provide notice to, and request comments from, these entities when we adjust irrigation assessment rates.

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

    The rate adjustments will have no adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use (including a shortfall in supply, price increases, and increase use of foreign supplies) should the proposed rate adjustments be implemented. This is a notice for rate adjustments at BIA-owned and operated irrigation projects, except for the Fort Yuma Irrigation Project. The Fort Yuma Irrigation Project is owned and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation with a portion serving the Fort Yuma Reservation.

    Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)

    These rate adjustments are not a significant regulatory action and do not need to be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    These rate adjustments are not a rule for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because they establish “a rule of particular applicability relating to rates.” 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    These rate adjustments do not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, of more than $130 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, the Department is not required to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Takings (Executive Order 12630)

    The Department has determined that these rate adjustments do not have significant “takings” implications. The rate adjustments do not deprive the public, state, or local governments of rights or property.

    Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

    The Department has determined that these rate adjustments do not have significant Federalism effects because they will not affect the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government.

    Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

    In issuing this rule, the Department has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988.

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    These rate adjustments do not affect the collections of information which have been approved by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The OMB Control Number is 1076-0141 and expires March 31, 2016.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    The Department has determined that these rate adjustments do not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370(d)).

    Data Quality Act

    In developing this notice, we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554).

    Dated: February 26, 2015. Kevin K. Washburn, Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05265 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-W7-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [MMAA 104000] Outer Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, Oil and Gas Lease Sales, Western Planning Area Lease Sales 246 and 248 AGENCY:

    Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

    SUMMARY:

    BOEM has prepared a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for proposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas Lease Sales 246 and 248, which are tentatively scheduled to be held in August 2015 and 2016, respectively, in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Western Planning Area (WPA) offshore the States of Texas and Louisiana. This Final Supplemental EIS updates the environmental and socioeconomic analyses for proposed WPA Lease Sales 246 and 248 evaluated in the Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2012-2017; Western Planning Area Lease Sales 229, 233, 238, 246, and 248; Central Planning Area Lease Sales 227, 231, 235, 241, and 247, Final Environmental Impact Statement (2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS; OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012-019); Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2013-2014; Western Planning Area Lease Sale 233; Central Planning Area Lease Sale 231, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (WPA 233/CPA 231 Supplemental EIS; OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2013-0118); and Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2014-2016; Western Planning Area Lease Sales 238, 246, and 248, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (WPA 238/246/248 Supplemental EIS; OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2014-009). The 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS was completed in July 2012. The WPA 233/CPA 231 Supplemental EIS was completed in April 2013. The WPA 238/246/248 Supplemental EIS was completed in March 2014.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Gary D. Goeke, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, Office of Environment (GM 623E), 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394, by telephone at 504-736-3233 or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    BOEM developed this Final Supplemental EIS for proposed WPA Lease Sales 246 and 248 to consider new information made available since completion of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, WPA 233/CPA 231 Supplemental EIS, and WPA 238/246/248 Supplemental EIS, and to consider new information on the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and response. This Final Supplemental EIS provides updates on the baseline conditions and potential environmental effects of oil and natural gas leasing, exploration, development, and production in the WPA. BOEM conducted an extensive search for new information in consideration of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and response, reviewing scientific journals and available scientific data and information from academic institutions and Federal, State, and local agencies; and interviewing personnel from academic institutions and Federal, State, and local agencies. BOEM has examined the potential impacts of routine activities, accidental events, and the proposed lease sales' incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts on environmental and socioeconomic resources. BOEM has also examined the potential impacts associated with a low-probability catastrophic event. The oil and gas resource estimates and scenario information for this Final Supplemental EIS are presented as a range that would encompass the oil and gas resources and activities estimated for a proposed WPA lease sale.

    BOEM has printed and will be distributing a limited number of paper copies of the Final Supplemental EIS. In keeping with the Department of the Interior's mission of the protection of natural resources and to limit costs while ensuring availability of the document to the public, BOEM will primarily distribute digital copies of the Final Supplemental EIS on compact discs. However, if you require a paper copy, BOEM will provide one upon request if copies are still available.

    1. You may obtain a copy of the Final Supplemental EIS from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, Public Information Office (GM 335A), 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, Room 250, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394 (1-800-200-GULF).

    2. You may download or view the Final Supplemental EIS on BOEM's Web site at http://www.boem.gov//.

    Several libraries along the Gulf Coast have been sent copies of the Final Supplemental EIS. To find out which libraries have copies of the Final Supplemental EIS for review, you may contact BOEM's Public Information Office or visit BOEM's Web site at http://www.boem.gov//.

    Authority:

    This Notice of Availability is published pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR part 1503) implementing the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. [1988]).

    Dated: January 27, 2015. Abigail Ross Hopper, Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05037 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [BOEM-2014-0085; MMAA104000] Outer Continental Shelf, 2017-2022 Oil and Gas Leasing Program AGENCY:

    Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of additional public scoping meetings for the programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the 2017-2022 Oil and Gas Leasing Program.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is announcing three additional public scoping meetings for the EIS on the 2017-2022 Oil and Gas Leasing Program.

    Additional Scoping Meetings Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina

    ○ March 16, 2015; Ramada Plaza Nags Head Oceanfront, 1701 S. Virginia Dare Trail, Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina; 3:00-7:00 p.m.; free parking.

    Atlantic City, New Jersey

    ○ March 18, 2015; Sheraton Atlantic City, 2 Convention Blvd., Atlantic City, New Jersey; 3:00-7:00 p.m.; validated participant parking at hotel.

    <