Federal Register Vol. 80, No.53,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 53 (March 19, 2015)

Page Range14291-14804
FR Document

80_FR_53
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 14413 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
80 FR 14305 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; York River, Yorktown and Gloucester Point, VAPDF
80 FR 14382 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 14407 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 14314 - Sodium L-Lactate and Sodium DL-Lactate; Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
80 FR 14418 - Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors; Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 14291 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec HI-STORM Flood/Wind System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1PDF
80 FR 14332 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec HI-STORM Flood/Wind System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1PDF
80 FR 14370 - Sole Source Aquifer Designation of the Mahomet Aquifer System in East-Central IllinoisPDF
80 FR 14305 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, St. Petersburg Beach, FLPDF
80 FR 14392 - Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes; Tribal Management Grant ProgramPDF
80 FR 14387 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 14365 - Request for Information Regarding Credit Card MarketPDF
80 FR 14380 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 14360 - Stakeholder Engagement on Cybersecurity in the Digital EcosystemPDF
80 FR 14433 - Thirty-Second Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 224, Airport Security Access Control SystemsPDF
80 FR 14345 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Seismic Surveys in Cook Inlet, AlaskaPDF
80 FR 14319 - 2015 Annual Determination To Implement the Sea Turtle Observer RequirementPDF
80 FR 14404 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 14433 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Organization Designation AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 14406 - Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations for Lee County, Illinois, and Incorporated Areas and Ogle County, Illinois, and Incorporated AreasPDF
80 FR 14404 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 14407 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 14416 - URENCO USA, Uranium Enrichment FacilityPDF
80 FR 14417 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 14431 - Maine Disaster #ME-00043PDF
80 FR 14431 - Hawaii Disaster #HI-00035PDF
80 FR 14429 - California Disaster #CA-00233PDF
80 FR 14430 - Data Collection Available for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 14429 - Data Collection Available for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 14358 - Notice of Intent To Reinstate an Information CollectionPDF
80 FR 14357 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive LicensePDF
80 FR 14367 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 14384 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 14384 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 14385 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 14358 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive LicensePDF
80 FR 14359 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingsPDF
80 FR 14418 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 14424 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 14428 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 14426 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 14359 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive LicensePDF
80 FR 14389 - Announcement of the Award of an Emergency Single-Source Grant to the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants in Arlington, VAPDF
80 FR 14411 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Cotton Dust StandardPDF
80 FR 14364 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
80 FR 14363 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 14368 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 14344 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Black Pinesnake; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 14414 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 14415 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 14418 - Amended Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife ProgramPDF
80 FR 14434 - Portland & Western Railroad, Inc.-Acquisition and Operation Exemption-Port of Tillamook BayPDF
80 FR 14296 - Airworthiness Directives; Stemme AG GlidersPDF
80 FR 14367 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Safety Standard for Portable Bed RailsPDF
80 FR 14328 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Snapper Management MeasuresPDF
80 FR 14432 - Meeting of the Regional Resource Stewardship CouncilPDF
80 FR 14408 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Electrical Standards for Construction and for General IndustryPDF
80 FR 14409 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Shipyard Employment StandardsPDF
80 FR 14369 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Predominantly Black Institutions ApplicationPDF
80 FR 14307 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lake Washington Ship Canal, Seattle, WAPDF
80 FR 14389 - Assessing the Center of Drug Evaluation and Research's Safety-Related Regulatory Science Needs and Identifying Priorities; Report; Availability; Request for CommentsPDF
80 FR 14410 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Electrical Standards for Construction and for General IndustryPDF
80 FR 14413 - Extension of Comment Period for Agricultural Worker Population Data for Basic Field-Migrant GrantsPDF
80 FR 14425 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX Rule 402PDF
80 FR 14383 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
80 FR 14382 - Federal Advisory Committee Act; Downloadable Security Technology Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 14382 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
80 FR 14391 - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions ReceivedPDF
80 FR 14402 - An Interactive Discussion on the Clinical Considerations of Risk in the Postmarket Environment; Public Workshop; Request for CommentsPDF
80 FR 14432 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed RequestPDF
80 FR 14372 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection and Comment Request; Assessment of Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Federal ProcurementPDF
80 FR 14404 - Center for Scientific Review; Cancellation of MeetingPDF
80 FR 14345 - Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan RegulationsPDF
80 FR 14390 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 14402 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 14401 - Center for Scientific Review Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 14391 - Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 14390 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 14421 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE MKT LLC; Order Granting an Extension to Limited Exemptions From Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS in Connection With the Exchanges' Retail Liquidity Programs Until September 30, 2015PDF
80 FR 14427 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend NASDAQ Rules 7014PDF
80 FR 14419 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of FeesPDF
80 FR 14421 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Order Granting Approval to Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Adopt a “Risk Protection Monitor” Functionality Under Proposed MIAX Rule 519A and Amend the “Aggregate Risk Monitor” Functionality Under MIAX Rule 612PDF
80 FR 14405 - Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee; Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 14434 - Petition for Waiver of CompliancePDF
80 FR 14409 - SST Truck Company, LLC; A Navistar, Inc. Company Truck Specialty Center and Warehouse and Distribution Including On-Site Leased Workers From Employee Solutions and ODW Contract Services, Garland, Texas; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 14412 - Day & Zimmermann, Inc., Kansas Division, Parsons, Kansas; Notice of Negative Determination on ReconsiderationPDF
80 FR 14406 - Certain Electronic Products, Including Products With Near Field Communication (“NFC”) System-Level Functionality and/or Battery Power-Up Functionality, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Institution of InvestigationPDF
80 FR 14318 - Amendments to Rules Governing Service of Private Party Complaints and Documents Containing Confidential MaterialsPDF
80 FR 14415 - Advisory Committee for Engineering; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 14299 - Airworthiness Directives; Short Brothers & Harland Ltd. AirplanesPDF
80 FR 14374 - Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status InformationPDF
80 FR 14310 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Preconstruction Requirements-Nonattainment New Source ReviewPDF
80 FR 14308 - Schedule for Rating Disabilities-Mental Disorders and Definition of Psychosis for Certain VA PurposesPDF
80 FR 14301 - Fiduciary Requirements for Disclosure in Participant-Directed Individual Account Plans-Timing of Annual DisclosurePDF
80 FR 14334 - Fiduciary Requirements for Disclosure in Participant-Directed Individual Account Plans-Timing of Annual DisclosurePDF
80 FR 14357 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 14369 - Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator or Foreign Utility Company StatusPDF
80 FR 14339 - Rules of Practice in Transportation: Investigative Hearings; Meetings; Reports; and Petitions for ReconsiderationPDF
80 FR 14338 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Missouri; Reporting Emission Data, Emission Fees and Process InformationPDF
80 FR 14312 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Missouri; Reporting Emission Data, Emission Fees and Process InformationPDF
80 FR 14385 - Granting of Request for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification RulesPDF
80 FR 14335 - Safety Zones, St. Petersburg Captain of the Port ZonePDF
80 FR 14297 - Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. HelicoptersPDF
80 FR 14438 - Security-Based Swap Data Repository Registration, Duties, and Core PrinciplesPDF
80 FR 14740 - Regulation SBSR-Reporting and Dissemination of Security-Based Swap InformationPDF
80 FR 14564 - Regulation SBSR-Reporting and Dissemination of Security-Based Swap InformationPDF

Issue

80 53 Thursday, March 19, 2015 Contents Agricultural Research Agricultural Research Service NOTICES Exclusive Licenses: Anammox Bacterium Isolate, Renewable Nutrients, LLC of Pinehurst, NC, 14358 2015-06318 Gaseous Ammonia Removal System, Renewable Nutrients, LLC of Pinehurst, NC, 14359 2015-06312 Systems and Methods for Reducing Ammonia Emissions from Liquid Effluents and for Recovering the Ammonia, Renewable Nutrients, LLC of Pinehurst, NC, 14357 2015-06323 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Research Service

See

National Agricultural Statistics Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14357 2015-06208
Army Army Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14368 2015-06303 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection NOTICES Requests for Information: Credit Card Market, 14365-14366 2015-06351 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Emergency Single-Source Grant Awards: U.S Committee for Refugees and Immigrants in Arlington, VA, 14389 2015-06311 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, St. Petersburg Beach, FL, 14305-14307 2015-06357 Lake Washington Ship Canal, Seattle, WA, 14307-14308 2015-06289 York River, Yorktown, and Gloucester Point, VA, 14305 2015-06465 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: St. Petersburg Captain of the Port Zone, 14335-14338 2015-05743 NOTICES Meetings: Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee; Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee, 14405-14406 2015-06255 Commerce Commerce Department See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Safety Standard for Portable Bed Rails, 14367 2015-06295 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14367-14368 2015-06322
Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Predominantly Black Institutions Application, 14369 2015-06290 Employee Benefits Employee Benefits Security Administration RULES Fiduciary Requirements for Disclosure in Participant-Directed Individual Account Plans—Timing of Annual Disclosure, 14301-14304 2015-06211 PROPOSED RULES Fiduciary Requirements for Disclosure in Participant-Directed Individual Account Plans—Timing of Annual Disclosure, 14334 2015-06210 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Reconsiderations; Determinations: Day and Zimmermann, Inc., Parsons, KS, 14412-14413 2015-06246 Worker Adjustment Assistance; Amended Certifications: SST Truck Company, LLC, Garland, TX, 14409 2015-06247 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: District of Columbia; Preconstruction Requirements - Nonattainment New Source Review, 14310-14312 2015-06217 Missouri; Reporting Emission Data, Emission Fees and Process Information, 14312-14314 2015-06115 Pesticide Tolerances; Exemptions from Requirements: Sodium L-lactate and Sodium DL-lactate, 14314-14318 2015-06373 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Missouri; Reporting Emission Data, Emission Fees and Process Information, 14338-14339 2015-06126 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Assessment of Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Federal Procurement, 14372-14374 2015-06275 Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information, 14374-14380 2015-06223 Sole Source Aquifer Designation of the Mahomet Aquifer System in East-Central Illinois, 14370-14371 2015-06365 Equal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 14380-14382 2015-06345 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 14382 2015-06440 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters, 14297-14299 2015-05715 Short Brothers and Harland Ltd. Airplanes; Correction, 14299-14301 2015-06235 Stemme AG Gliders, 14296-14297 2015-06296 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Organization Designation Authorization, 14433-14434 2015-06338 Meetings: RTCA Special Committee 224, Airport Security Access Control Systems, 14433 2015-06343 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Ensure Compatibility With Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, 14382 2015-06282 Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, 14383-14384 2015-06284 Meetings: Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee; Corrections, 14382-14383 2015-06283 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14404 2015-06336 Flood Hazard Determinations; Proposals, 2015-06337 14404-14406 2015-06339 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator or Foreign Utility Company: Duke Energy Beckjord Storage, LLC; Samchully Power and Utilities 1 LLC; Chief Conemaugh Power, LLC; et al., 14369-14370 2015-06205 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission RULES Service of Private Party Complaints and Documents Containing Confidential Materials, 14318-14319 2015-06239 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Petitions for Waivers of Compliance, 14434 2015-06254 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 14384 2015-06320 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 14384-14385 2015-06321 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies, 14385 2015-06319 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14387-14389 2015-06352 Granting of Requests: Early Termination of the Waiting Period under the Premerger Notiifcation Rules, 14385-14387 2015-05919 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Designation of Critical Habitat for the Black Pinesnake; Correction, 14344-14345 2015-06302 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Assessing the Center of Drug Evaluation and Research's Safety-Related Regulatory Science Needs and Identifying Priorities; Report, 14389-14390 2015-06288 Meetings: Discussion on Clinical Considerations of Risk in the Postmarket Environment; Workshop, 14402-14404 2015-06278 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

Indian Health Service

See

National Institutes of Health

Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: List of Petitions Received, 14391-14392 2015-06279 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Indian Health Indian Health Service NOTICES Grant Applications: Tribal Management Grant Program, 14392-14401 2015-06353 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Electronic Products, Including Products with Near Field Communication System-Level Functionality and/or Battery Power-Up Functionality, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, 14406-14407 2015-06245 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 14407 2015-06430 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 14407-14408 2015-06335 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employee Benefits Security Administration

See

Employment and Training Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Cotton Dust Standard, 14411-14412 2015-06310 Electrical Standards for Construction and for General Industry, 14408-14411 2015-06287 2015-06292 Shipyard Employment Standards, 14409-14410 2015-06291
Legal Legal Services Corporation NOTICES Agricultural Worker Population Data for Basic Field-Migrant Grants, 14413 2015-06286 National Agricultural National Agricultural Statistics Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14358-14359 2015-06324 National Council National Council on Disability NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 14413-14414 2015-06481 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 14401-14402 2015-06268 Center for Scientific Review; Cancellations, 14404 2015-06274 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 14402 2015-06269 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 14390 2015-06266 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Amendment, 14390-14391 2015-06270 Office of the Director, 14391 2015-06267 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Endangered and Threatened Marine Species: Sea Turtle Observer Requirement; Annual Determination to Implement, 14319-14328 2015-06341 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Snapper Management Measures, 14328-14331 2015-06294 PROPOSED RULES Taking and Importing Marine Mammals: Incidental to Seismic Surveys in Cook Inlet, AK, 14345 2015-06342 Taking of Marine Mammals: Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations, 14345-14356 2015-06272 NOTICES Meetings: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 14359-14360 2015-06317 New England Fishery Management Council, 14363-14364 2015-06306 2015-06307 North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 14364-14365 2015-06308 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2015-06300 14414-14415 2015-06301 Meetings: Advisory Committee for Engineering, 14415-14416 2015-06238 National Telecommunications National Telecommunications and Information Administration NOTICES Stakeholder Engagement on Cybersecurity in the Digital Ecosystem, 14360-14363 2015-06344 National Transportation National Transportation Safety Board PROPOSED RULES Investigative Hearings: Rules of Practice in Transportation, 14339-14344 2015-06187 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES Lists of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec HI-STORM Flood/Wind System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, 14291-14295 2015-06367 PROPOSED RULES Lists of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec HI-STORM Flood/Wind System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, 14332-14334 2015-06366 NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: URENCO USA, Uranium Enrichment Facility, 14416-14417 2015-06334 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 14417-14418 2015-06333 Pacific Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Council NOTICES Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program; Amendments, 14418 2015-06299 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 14418 2015-06372 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Reporting and Dissemination of Security-Based Swap Information, 14564-14737 2015-03124 Security-Based Swap Data Repository Registration, Duties, and Core Principles, 14438-14562 2015-03127 PROPOSED RULES Reporting and Dissemination of Security-Based Swap Information, 14740-14804 2015-03125 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14418-14419, 14424-14429 2015-06313 2015-06314 2015-06315 2015-06316 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: ISE Gemini, LLC, 14419-14421 2015-06263 Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, 14421-14426 2015-06262 2015-06285 New York Stock Exchange, LLC and NYSE MKT, LLC, 14421 2015-06265 The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 14427-14428 2015-06264 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14429-14431 2015-06326 2015-06327 2015-06328 2015-06329 Disaster Declarations: California, 14429-14430 2015-06330 Hawaii, 14431-14432 2015-06331 Maine, 14431 2015-06332 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14432 2015-06277 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Acquisitions and Operation Exemptions: Portland and Western Railroad, Inc. from Port of Tillamook Bay, 14434-14435 2015-06297 Tennessee Tennessee Valley Authority NOTICES Meetings: Regional Resource Stewardship Council, 14432-14433 2015-06293 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department RULES Schedule for Rating Disabilities: Mental Disorders and Definition of Psychosis for Certain Purposes, 14308-14309 2015-06212 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Securities and Exchange Commission, 14438-14562 2015-03127 Part III Securities and Exchange Commission, 14564-14737 2015-03124 Part IV Securities and Exchange Commission, 14740-14804 2015-03125 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 53 Thursday, March 19, 2015 Rules and Regulations NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 [NRC-2014-0275] RIN 3150-AJ52 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec HI-STORM Flood/Wind System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1 AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Holtec International, Inc. (Holtec), HI-STORM Flood/Wind (FW) System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to add Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1032. Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, allows these casks to accept 14X14B fuel assemblies with minor changes in the internal diameter of the fuel cladding, diameter of the fuel pellet, and spacing between the fuel pins. The amendment also updates testing requirements for the fabrication of Metamic HT neutron-absorbing structural material.

DATES:

The direct final rule is effective June 2, 2015, unless significant adverse comments are received by April 20, 2015. If the direct final rule is withdrawn as a result of such comments, timely notice of the withdrawal will be published in the Federal Register. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Comments received on this direct final rule will also be considered to be comments on a companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

• Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0275. 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.

• Email comments to: [email protected] If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301-415-1677.

• Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301-415-1101.

• Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

• Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.

For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert D. MacDougall, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5175, email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0275 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-2014-0275.

• 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 O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0275 in the subject line of your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

II. Procedural Background

This direct final rule is limited to adding Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, which will supersede Amendment No. 1 (effective December 17, 2014), to CoC No. 1032 to the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks,” and does not include other aspects of the Holtec HI-STORM FW System design. Amendment No. 1 continues to be effective but is now being modified with respect to certain specified provisions, as outlined in Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, and in Section IV of this document, which apply to all general licensees using the casks for Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSIs). Therefore, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, supersedes the previously issued Amendment No. 1 (effective December 17, 2014). In requesting this revision, Holtec indicated that no ISFSI licensee has placed such a cask into service under CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1.

The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing CoC that is expected to be noncontroversial. The amendment to the rule will become effective on June 2, 2015. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this direct final rule by April 20, 2015, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rule section of this issue of the Federal Register. Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action.

A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.

(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or Technical Specifications (TSs).

For detailed instructions on filing comments, please see the ADDRESSES section of this document.

III. 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 “[t]]he 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 which added a new subpart K in part 72 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 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 in 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 subsequently issued a final rule on October 3, 2014 (79 FR 59623), that approved the HI-STORM FW System design amendment and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214 as CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1.

IV. Discussion of Changes

On July 31, 2013, Holtec submitted a revision request for the Holtec HI-STORM FW System CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1. Holtec supplemented its request on November 5, 2013. As a revision, the CoC will supersede the previous version of the CoC and its TSs, effective December 17, 2014, in their entirety. Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, revises the authorized contents of the cask in Appendix B to the TSs to include 14X14B fuel assemblies with minor changes in the internal diameter of the fuel cladding, diameter of the fuel pellet, and fuel rod pitch (distance from fuel pin centerlines). The amendment also updates testing requirements for the fabrication of Metamic HT neutron-absorbing aluminum alloy structural material used to secure the spent fuel inside the cask. These changes to Appendix B of the TSs are identified with revision bars in the margin of the document.

Specifically, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, changes the fuel cladding internal diameter, the fuel pellet diameter, and the fuel rod pitch (distance from fuel pin centerlines) of the fuel assembly class 14X14B. These changes in spacing between the fuel pins would result in a volumetric increase of 0.6 percent of the fuel and a reduction of 0.13 percent of the original flow area. Because this reduced flow area is still larger than the 17X17 assembly flow area used as the bounding scenario, the flow resistance factor is still less restrictive than the bounding scenario, and the passive decay heat removal of the proposed 14X14B assembly is still conservative.

Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, also removes fabrication testing requirements for the thermal expansion coefficient and thermal conductivity of Metamic HT neutron-absorbing structural material, as these properties have little variability in this aluminum alloy when fabricated according to the manufacturer's manual.

As documented in the safety evaluation report (SER), the NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC Amendment No. 1, Revision 1 request. There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the proposed Revision 1 to the CoC Amendment No. 1. Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the cask 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. Amendment No. 1, Revision 1 does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, would remain well within 10 CFR part 20 radiation protection limits. Therefore, the proposed CoC changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the October 3, 2014 (79 FR 59623), final rule that approved the HI-STORM FW System design Amendment 1. There will be no significant change in the types or amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents.

This direct final rule revises the Holtec HI-STORM FW System listing in 10 CFR 72.214 by superseding Amendment 1 to CoC No. 1032 (effective December 17, 2014) with Amendment No. 1, Revision 1. The revision consists of the changes previously described, as set forth in the revised CoC and TSs. Appendix A and the revised Appendix B of the TSs are identified in the SER and are also available in ADAMS.

The amended Holtec HI-STORM FW System design, when used under the conditions specified in the CoC, the 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 direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under 10 CFR 72.210 may load spent nuclear fuel into Holtec HI-STORM FW Systems that meet the criteria of Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, to CoC No. 1032 under 10 CFR 72.212.

V. Voluntary Consensus Standards

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards 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 direct final rule, the NRC will revise the Holtec HI-STORM FW System design listed in § 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

VI. 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 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.

VII. 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).

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

This direct final rule amends 10 CFR 72.214 by revising the CoC for the Holtec HI-STORM FW System design listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to add Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, to CoC No. 1032. 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 direct final rule revises the CoC for the Holtec HI-STORM FW System within the list of approved systems that can be used for dry storage of additional fuel assembly designs now in reactor spent fuel storage pools.

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 Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, of CoC 1032 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 HI-STORM FW 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 cask would prevent loss of confinement, shielding, and criticality control. If there is no loss of confinement, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts would be insignificant. This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the proposed CoC amendment. In addition, because there are no significant design or process changes, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, would remain well within 10 CFR part 20 radiation protection limits. Therefore, the proposed CoC changes will not result in any 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 amounts of any effluents released, no significant increase in individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. The staff has documented its safety findings in the SER.

D. Alternative to the Action

The alternative to this action is to deny approval of Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, and end this direct final rule. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load spent nuclear fuel into the Holtec HI-STORM FW System in accordance with the changes described in proposed Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, would have to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, interested licensees would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, each separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee. Therefore, the environmental impacts of the alternative to the action would be the same or more than the impacts of the action.

E. Alternative Use of Resources

Approval of Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, to CoC No. 1032 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 direct final rule entitled, “Holtec HI-STORM Flood/Wind System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1,” 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 direct final rule.

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This rule does not contain any information collection requirements, and is therefore not subject to 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 currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.

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 direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and Holtec International, Inc. 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. 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. On March 28, 2011 (76 FR 17019), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 that approved the Holtec HI-STORM FW System design by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214.

On July 31, 2013, and as supplemented on November 5, 2013, Holtec submitted an application to amend the HI-STORM FW System as described in Section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” of this document.

The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, and to require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into a Holtec HI-STORM FW System under the changes described in Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.

Approval of the direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the SER and the environmental assessment, the direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This direct 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 direct 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.

XII. Backfitting and Issue Finality

This direct final rule revises the CoC No. 1032 for the Holtec HI-STORM FW System, as currently listed in 10 CFR 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, revises authorized contents of the cask to include 14X14B fuel assemblies with minor changes in the internal diameter of the fuel cladding, diameter of the fuel pellet, and spacing between the fuel pins. The revision also updates testing requirements for the fabrication of Metamic HT neutron-absorbing aluminum alloy structural material used to secure the spent fuel inside the cask.

Although Holtec has manufactured some casks under the existing CoC 1032, Amendment No. 1 that is being revised by this direct final rule, Holtec, as the vendor, is not subject to backfitting protection under 10 CFR 72.62. Moreover, Holtec requested the change and has requested to apply it to the existing casks manufactured under Amendment No. 1. Therefore, even if the vendor were deemed to be an entity protected from backfitting, this request represents a voluntary change and is not backfitting.

Additionally, because Holtec has not delivered any cask certified under CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, no ISFSI licensee has placed such a cask into service. Therefore, the changes in Amendment 1, Revision 1 which are approved in this direct final rule do not fall within the definition of backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62 or 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.

Finally, the changes in CoC No. 1032, Amendment 1, Revision 1 do not apply to casks manufactured to the initial CoC 1032, and therefore, have no effect on current ISFSI licensees using these casks. While any current CoC user may comply with the new requirements in Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, this would be a voluntary decision on the part of the user. For these reasons, NRC approval of CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, does not constitute backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62 or 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1), or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52 for users of the Holtec HI-STORM FW System manufactured to the initial CoC No. 1032.

For the reasons set forth above, the NRC has not prepared a backfit analysis or additional documentation addressing the issue finality criteria in 10 CFR part 52.

XIII. Congressional Review Act

This action is not a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808).

XIV. 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 below.

Document ADAMS
  • Accession No./Web link/
  • Federal
  • Register
  • citation
  • CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1 ML14276A621 CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, Appendix A to the Technical Specifications ML14276A618 CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, Appendix B of the Technical Specifications ML14276A617 CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, Preliminary SER ML14276A620 Holtec International HI-STORM Flood/Wind Multipurpose Canister Storage System, License Amendment Request 1032-2, July 31, 2013 ML13214A023 Submittal of Response to First Request for Additional Information for License Amendment Request No. 2 to the Holtec International HI-STORM Flood/Wind Multi-Purpose Canister Storage System, November 5, 2013 ML13311A103

    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-2014-0275. 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-2014-0275); (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; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 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. In § 72.214, Certificate of Compliance No. 1032 is revised to read as follows:
    § 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks.

    Certificate Number: 1032.

    Initial Certificate Effective Date: June 13, 2011.

    Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: December 17, 2014, superseded by Amendment Number 1, Revision 1, on June 2, 2015.

    Amendment Number 1, Revision 1, Effective Date: June 2, 2015.

    SAR Submitted by: Holtec International, Inc.

    SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the Holtec HI-STORM FW System.

    Docket Number: 72-1032.

    Certificate Expiration Date: June 12, 2031.

    Model Number: HI-STORM FW MPC-37, MPC-89.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of March, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Mark A. Satorius, Executive Director for Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06367 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0633; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-005-AD; Amendment 39-18121; AD 2015-06-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Stemme AG Gliders AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Stemme AG TSA-M Models S6 and S6-RT gliders. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a bending defect of the fork head installed in the aileron, speed brake, and flap control systems. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective March 24, 2015.

    We must receive comments on this AD by May 4, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    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 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For information concerning this action, contact Stemme AG, Flugplatzstraße F2, Nr. 6-7, D-15344 Strausberg, Germany; phone: +49 (0) 3341/3612 0; fax: none; email: [email protected]; internet: www.stemme.info.

    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-2015-0633; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket 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:

    Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No.: 2015-0034-E, dated February 27, 2015, (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    A report was received concerning a broken fork head, installed in the speed brake control circuit of a TSA-M Model S6-RT powered sailplane. Preliminary investigation results revealed additional cases of bending defect of the same part, which were installed in the aileron and flaps control systems of the TSA-M type design. The same fork heads are also installed in the control systems of ASP Model S15-1 aeroplanes.

    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to failure of the flight control system, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.

    For the reasons described above, this AD prohibits the operation of the affected aeroplanes pending the availability of a modification of the affected flight control systems in accordance with approved instructions.

    This AD is a temporary measure and further AD action may follow. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0633.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of the 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 this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because a bending defect of the fork head could lead to failure of the flight control system, possibly resulting in loss of control. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

    Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0633; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-005-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 6 products of U.S. registry.

    At the time of issuance of this AD, no design solution is available to restore the airworthiness of the respective type designs to a level corresponding to their approved type design specifications. Therefore, the FAA cannot determine the cost of returning the affected gliders to service.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: 2015-06-03 Stemme AG: Amendment 39-18121; Docket No. FAA-2015-0633; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-005-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March 24, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Stemme AG TSA-M Models S6 and S6-RT gliders, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a bending defect of the fork head installed in the aileron, speed brake, and flap control systems. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct the bending defect of the fork head that could result in failure of the flight control system, possibly resulting in loss of control.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, before further flight, after March 24, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), modify the affected flight control systems, or take other actions, following a method approved specifically for this AD by the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate. Contact Stemme AG to obtain FAA-approved repair instructions approved specifically for compliance with this AD and incorporate those instructions. You can find contact information for Stemme AG in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.

    Note 1 to paragraph (f) of this AD: At the time of issuance of this AD, no design solution is available to restore the airworthiness of the respective type designs to a level corresponding to their approved type design specifications.

    (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

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

    (h) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

    (i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2015-0034-E, dated February 27, 2015, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0633.

    (2) For information concerning this action, contact Stemme AG, Flugplatzstraße F2, Nr. 6-7, D-15344 Strausberg, Germany; phone: +49 (0) 3341/3612 0; fax: none; email: [email protected]; internet: www.stemme.info.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 12, 2015. Robert Busto, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06296 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0579; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-020-AD; Amendment 39-18115; AD 2015-05-05] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-04-14 for Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model A109S, AW109SP, A119, and AW119 MKII helicopters. AD 2014-04-14 required removing certain rod end assemblies from service because of reports of fractures. This new AD retains the requirements of AD 2014-04-14 but expands the scope of applicable rod end assemblies. This AD was prompted by reports of additional fractured rod end assemblies. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of a rod end assembly, which could result in damage to the main rotor assembly and loss of control of the helicopter.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective April 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this AD, contact AgustaWestland, Product Support Engineering, Via del Gregge, 100, 21015 Lonate Pozzolo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Maurizio D'Angelo; telephone 39-0331-664757; fax 39-0331-664680; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bulletins. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Grant, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to remove AD 2014-04-14, Amendment 39-17773 (79 FR 11699, March 3, 2014) for Agusta Model A109S, AW109SP, A119, and AW119 MKII helicopters with a main rotor lag damper assembly (lag damper), part number (P/N) 109-0112-39-103, 109-0112-39-105, 109-0112-05-105, or 109-0112-05-107, installed with a rod end assembly, P/N M004-01H007-041 or P/N M004-01H007-045, with a serial number from 84 through 132 or from 4964 through 5011, and add a new AD. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 18, 2014 (79 FR 48698). AD 2014-04-14 required removing the rod end assemblies from service. AD 2014-04-14 was prompted by AD No. 2012-0208, dated October 5, 2012, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Agusta Model A109LUH, A109S, AW109SP, A119, and AW119 MKII helicopters. EASA advises of cases of in-flight fractures of rod end assembly, P/N M004-01H007-045, installed on main rotor lag dampers on Model A109LUH and AW109SP helicopters. An investigation revealed that two batches of rod end assemblies, P/N M004-01H007-041 and M004-01H007-045, could have cracks, according to EASA. EASA states that this condition, if not corrected, could lead to main rotor damage, possibly resulting in loss of control of the helicopter. The actions of AD 2014-04-14 were intended to prevent such damage and loss of control of the helicopter.

    Actions Since AD 2014-04-14 Was Issued

    Between the time we published the NPRM for AD 2014-04-14 (78 FR 44042, July 23, 2013) and the Final Rule for AD 2014-04-14 (79 FR 11699, March 3, 2014), EASA issued AD No. 2013-0290, dated December 9, 2013. EASA advises in AD No. 2013-0290 that a new case of a fractured rod end assembly has been reported and that additional batches of rod end assembly, P/N M004-01H007-041 and P/N M004-01H007-045, as well as batches of P/N 109-0112-11-101 and P/N 109-0112-22-105 could also have cracks. EASA expanded the applicability of its AD to include the additional rod end assemblies.

    We consequently issued the NPRM (79 FR 48698, August 18, 2014) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to remove AD 2014-04-14 and add a new AD. The NPRM proposed to retain the requirements of AD 2014-04-14 but expand the scope of applicable rod end assemblies. The NPRM also proposed to add a provision requiring compliance with the AD if the rod end assembly is removed during maintenance before 25 hours time-in-service (TIS).

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 48698, August 18, 2014).

    FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed, except we have correctly stated the design holder's name as Agusta S.p.A. instead of AgustaWestland S.p.A. as specified by the current FAA type certificate. This change is consistent with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM (79 FR 48698, August 18, 2014) and will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

    Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD calls for replacing certain rod end assemblies with airworthy rod end assemblies within 25 hours TIS, 2 months, or the next time maintenance of the applicable helicopters involves removing the rod end assembly. This AD does not have a calendar time requirement. The EASA AD applies to Agusta Model A109LUH helicopters. This AD does not apply to Model A109LUH helicopters because that model does not have a U.S. type certificate.

    Related Service Information

    We reviewed AgustaWestland Bollettino Tecnico (BT) No. 109S-49 for Model A109S helicopters, BT No. 109SP-052 for Model AW109SP helicopters, and BT No. 119-50 for Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters. All of the BTs are revision A, and dated December 3, 2013. The BTs specify a one-time inspection of each rod end assembly to determine its serial number. The BTs then require removal from service of certain serial-numbered rod end assemblies because fractures had been reported on rod ends in these batches. According to the BTs, no one was injured in the helicopters, and no helicopters were damaged because of these fractures.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 91 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 a work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect the following costs:

    • Replacing a rod end assembly requires 1.5 work-hours for a labor cost of $128. Parts cost $3,918 for a total cost of $4,046 per helicopter, $368,186 for the U.S. fleet.

    According to the manufacturer's service information, costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by manufacturers. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-04-14, Amendment 39-17773 (79 FR 11699, March 3, 2014), and adding the following new AD: 2015-05-05 Agusta S.p.A.: Amendment 39-18115; Docket No. FAA-2014-0579; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-020-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following helicopters, certificated in any category:

    (1) Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model A109S and AW109SP helicopters, with a main rotor lag damper assembly (lag damper), part number (P/N) 109-0112-39-103 or 109-0112-39-105, installed on rod end assembly, P/N M004-01H007-041 with a serial number (S/N) 1 through 202; or rod end assembly, P/N M004-01H007-045 with a S/N 1RW through 202RW or 4964 through 5011.

    (2) Agusta Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters, with a lag damper, P/N 109-0112-05-105 or 109-0112-05-107, installed on rod end assembly, P/N 109-0112-11-101 with a S/N 1 through 78; or rod end assembly, P/N 109-0112-11-105 with a S/N 1RW through 78RW; or rod end assembly, P/N M004-01H007-045 with a S/N 1RW through 202RW or 4964 through 5011.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a rod end assembly, which could result in fracture of the rod end assembly, damage to the main rotor, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    (c) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2014-04-14, amendment 39-17773 (79 FR 11699, March 3, 2014).

    (d) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective April 23, 2015.

    (e) Compliance

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

    (f) Required Actions

    (1) Within 25 hours time-in-service or the next time maintenance of the helicopter involves removing the rod end assembly, whichever occurs first, remove the rod end assembly from service.

    (2) Do not install a rod end assembly, P/N M004-01H007-041 with a S/N 1 through 202; P/N M004-01H007-045 with a S/N 1RW through 202RW or 4964 through 5011; P/N 109-0112-11-101 with a S/N 1 through 78; or P/N 109-0112-11-105 with a S/N 1RW through 78RW, on any helicopter.

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Robert Grant, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

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

    (h) Additional Information

    (1) AgustaWestland S.p.A. Bollettino Tecnico (BT) No. 109S-49, BT No. 109SP-052, and BT No. 119-50, all Revision A, and all dated December 3, 2013, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact AgustaWestland, Product Support Engineering, Via del Gregge, 100, 21015 Lonate Pozzolo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Maurizio D'Angelo; telephone 39-0331-664757; fax 39-0331-664680; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bulletins. You may review a copy of the service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2013-0290, dated December 9, 2013. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2014-0579.

    (i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6200, Main Rotor System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 4, 2015. Bruce E. Cain, Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05715 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-1001; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-034-AD; Amendment 39-18103; AD 2015-04-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Short Brothers & Harland Ltd. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that published in the Federal Register. That AD applies to all Short Brothers & Harland Ltd. Model SC-7 Series 3 airplanes. The amendment number in the Agency Identification Numbers in the preamble section of the AD is incorrect. Although no other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been corrected, we are publishing the entire rule in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective March 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-1001; or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Short Brothers & Harland Ltd. service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airworthiness, Short Brothers PLC, P.O. Box 241, Airport Road, Belfast, BT3 9DZ Northern Ireland, United Kingdom; phone: +44-2890-462469, fax: 44-2890-733647, email: [email protected], internet: None; and for SAFRAN Messier-Buggatti-Dowty service information contact Messier-Dowty Limited, Cheltenham Road, Gloucester GL2 9QH, ENGLAND; phone: +44(0)1452 712424; fax: +44(0)1452 713821; email: [email protected], Internet: http://www.safranmbd.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-1001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Airworthiness Directive 2015-04-01, Amendment 39-18003 (80 FR 9382, February 23, 2015), currently requires a visual inspection of the NLG sliding tube and a fluorescent penetrant inspection of the sliding tube. If any crack is detected during either inspection, before further flight, obtain FAA-approved repair instructions approved specifically for compliance with this AD by reporting the findings, and incorporating those instructions for Short Brothers & Harland Ltd. Model SC-7 Series 3 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

    As published, the amendment number in the Agency Identification Numbers in the preamble section of the AD is incorrect. It has been corrected in this document.

    Although no other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been corrected, we are publishing the entire rule in the Federal Register.

    The effective date of this AD remains March 30, 2015.

    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 AD: 2015-04-01 Short Brothers & Harland Ltd: Amendment 39-18103; Docket No. FAA-2014-1001; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-034-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective on March 30, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Short Brothers & Harland Ltd. Model SC-7 Series 3 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as fatigue cracking which could lead to structural failure of the nose landing gear (NLG). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking which, if not detected and corrected, could lead to structural failure of the NLG, possibly resulting in loss of control of the airplane during take-off or landing.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, comply with this AD within the compliance times specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(5) of this AD.

    (1) Within 30 days after March 30, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), accomplish a visual inspection of the NLG sliding tube following the instructions of paragraph 3.A of SAFRAN Messier-Buggatti-Dowty Service Bulletin No. 32-17M, dated November 1, 2014.

    Note 1 to paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(4), and (f)(5) of this AD:

    Instructions provided by SAFRAN Messier-Buggatti-Dowty Service Bulletin No. 32-17M, dated November 1, 2014, are referenced in Shorts Service Bulletin Number 32-74, dated November 1, 2014.

    (2) Within 90 days after March 30, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), do a fluorescent penetrant inspection of the sliding tube following the instructions of paragraph 3.B of SAFRAN Messier-Buggatti-Dowty Service Bulletin No. 32-17M, dated November 1, 2014.

    (3) If any crack is detected during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, before further flight, obtain FAA-approved repair instructions approved specifically for compliance with this AD by reporting the findings to Short Brothers & Harland Ltd. and incorporating those instructions. You can find contact information for Short Brothers & Harland Ltd. in paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (4) Within 30 days after any inspection required by paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD or within 30 days after March 30, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs later, report the inspection results to Short Brothers & Harland Ltd. by completing the Inspection Results Proforma following the instructions of paragraph 3.C.(2) of SAFRAN Messier-Buggatti-Dowty Service Bulletin No. 32-17M, dated November 1, 2014. You can find contact information for Short Brothers & Harland Ltd. in paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (5) From March 30, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), you may install a sliding tube on an NLG provided that, before next flight after installation, the NLG sliding tube passes the inspections in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD following the instructions of paragraph 3 of SAFRAN Messier-Buggatti-Dowty Service Bulletin No. 32-17M, dated November 1, 2014.

    (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

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

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

    (h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2014-0246, dated November 12, 2014; and Shorts Service Bulletin Number 32-74, dated November 1, 2014, for related information. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-1001-0002. For Short Brothers & Harland Ltd. service information identified in this AD, contact Airworthiness, Short Brothers PLC, P.O. Box 241, Airport Road, Belfast, BT3 9DZ Northern Ireland, United Kingdom; phone: +44-2890-462469, fax: 44-2890-733647, email: [email protected]ro.bombardier.com, internet: None.

    (i) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) SAFRAN Messier-Buggatti-Dowty Service Bulletin No. 32-17M, dated November 1, 2014.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For SAFRAN Messier-Buggatti-Dowty service information identified in this AD, contact Messier-Dowty Limited, Cheltenham Road, Gloucester GL2 9QH, ENGLAND; phone: +44(0)1452 712424; fax: +44(0)1452 713821; email: [email protected], Internet: http://www.safranmbd.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-1001.

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

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 11, 2015. Robert Busto, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06235 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration 29 CFR Part 2550 RIN 1210-AB68 Fiduciary Requirements for Disclosure in Participant-Directed Individual Account Plans—Timing of Annual Disclosure AGENCY:

    Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This direct final rule amends the Department of Labor's “participant-level fee disclosure” regulation. The amendment makes a technical adjustment to a timing requirement in the current regulation. As amended, the regulation provides plan administrators with flexibility as to when they must furnish annual disclosures to participants and beneficiaries.

    DATES:

    Effective date: This rule is effective June 17, 2015, without further action or notice, unless significant adverse comment is received by April 20, 2015. If significant adverse comment is received, the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the Federal Register.

    Applicability date: The amendment is applicable to disclosures made on or after June 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1210-AB68, by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected].gov. Include RIN 1210-AB68 in the subject line of the message.

    Mail or personal delivery: Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-5655, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Comments received, including any personal information provided, will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.dol.gov/ebsa, and made available for public inspection at the Public Disclosure Room, N-1513, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Persons submitting comments electronically are encouraged not to submit paper copies.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eric A. Raps, Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor, at (202) 693-8532. This is not a toll-free number.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In General

    On October 20, 2010, the Department of Labor (Department) published a final regulation requiring plan administrators to disclose certain plan and investment-related information, including fee and expense information, to participants and beneficiaries in participant-directed individual account plans.1 The regulation requires certain information to be furnished on or before the date on which a participant can first direct his or her investments and “at least annually thereafter.” The regulation defines this term as “at least once in any 12-month period, without regard to whether the plan operates on a calendar or fiscal year basis.” 2 The regulation was effective on December 20, 2010, but was not applicable until plan years beginning on or after November 1, 2011.3

    1 29 CFR 2550.404a-5; 75 FR 64910.

    2 29 CFR 2550.404a-5(h)(1).

    3 The specified applicability date was subsequently delayed by amendment published on July 19, 2011. 76 FR 42539. Under the amendment, the initial disclosures required on or before the date on which a participant or beneficiary can first direct his or her investments must be furnished no later than the later of 60 days after such applicability date or 60 days after the effective date of 29 CFR 2550.408b-2(c). 29 CFR 2550.404a-5(j)(3)(i)(A).

    On July 30, 2012, the Department's Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) issued Field Assistance Bulletin 2012-02R (FAB 2012-02R) providing guidance on frequently asked questions. Q&A 35 clarified that, for most plans, including calendar year plans, the first initial disclosures under the new regulation were required no later than August 30, 2012. FAB 2012-02R did not, however, specifically address the deadline for subsequent annual disclosures.4

    4 FAB 2012-02R supersedes FAB 2012-02 issued on May 7, 2012. Changes in the superseding bulletin did not affect Question 35.

    In Field Assistance Bulletin 2013-02, issued July 22, 2013, the Department made clear that the regulation requires annual disclosures to be made no more than one year exactly (e.g., 365 days) after the prior annual disclosures. Specifically, FAB 2013-02, in relevant part, states “[f]or example, a plan administrator that furnished the first required chart on August 25, 2012, must furnish the next comparative chart no later than August 25, 2013.” This interpretation was intended to prevent inconsistencies, delays, and possible manipulation of the timing of annual disclosures. It also was responsive to the views expressed by some plan administrators, which contrary to EBSA's intent, interpreted “at least once in any 12-month period” to allow the furnishing of the annual disclosures, for example, on January 1 of one year and December 31 of the following year, thus allowing for approximately 24 months in between disclosures. At the same time, however, EBSA was concerned that the requirement that disclosures be made no more than one year exactly from the prior annual disclosures (as interpreted in FAB 2013-02) might impose undue administrative burdens on plans. Consequently, FAB 2013-02 solicited public comments on whether EBSA should amend the regulation to provide plan administrators with more flexibility as to when they must furnish the annual disclosures.5 For example, instead of a permanently fixed annual deadline set at one year exactly from the last annual disclosure, EBSA requested comments on whether the deadline should have some degree of elasticity, such as a 30-day or 45-day window from the one-year anniversary of the last annual disclosure.

    5 FAB 2013-02 also provided a one-time “re-set” opportunity under which EBSA, as an enforcement matter, would treat a plan administrator as satisfying the “at least annually thereafter” requirement of the regulation if the administrator furnished certain annual disclosures no later than 18 months from the prior annual disclosures. This temporary relief was granted to plan administrators so that the annual deadline for furnishing comparative charts and other annual disclosures under the regulation could be aligned with the furnishing of other participant notices and disclosures. FAB 2013-02 is not affected by the direct final regulation. Thus, to the extent it is otherwise available, an administrator does not lose the re-set relief in FAB 2013-02 for the second annual disclosure (described as the “2014 comparative chart” in FAB 2013-02) as a result of the direct final regulation.

    The Department received comments from several organizations representing employers, plans, recordkeepers and other service providers who furnish annual disclosures to participants and beneficiaries on behalf of plan administrators. These commenters raised multiple practical and logistical concerns about the current definition.

    For instance, the commenters maintain that the current definition may prevent them from consolidating the annual disclosures under the regulation with other annual plan disclosures. One commenter stated “many plan sponsors and service providers try, where possible, to consolidate participant communications in a way that ensures effective disclosures and avoids overloading participants with information too frequently.” On this point, a different commenter observed “it is helpful for employers to have a flexible deadline in case they need to change the dates of their annual enrollment periods or other annual plan-related mailings. A 45-day window would provide them with the flexibility to timely provide the annual disclosures to participants without concern that they may miss the deadline.”

    Another concern raised by the commenters is that the current definition requires them to track the specific date of annual disclosures on a plan-by-plan or participant-by-participant basis, even though large recordkeepers may have responsibility for tens of thousands of plan clients and millions of plan participants. The commenters also maintain that the current definition is a disincentive or punishment to plans that provide early disclosures in a given year. The commenters also maintain that certain investment information needed on a comparative chart, such as a designated investment alternative's 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year performance, often comes from different investment vendors and may not always be predictably delivered and consolidated by the 12-month anniversary deadline.

    Each of these concerns stems from the fact that the furnishing of a required annual disclosure before the expiration of the 12-month deadline (365th day) in any year necessarily changes and accelerates the deadline for subsequent plan years (i.e., the deadline “creeps” forward for all future years when there is early compliance during the current year). One commenter, for example, stated “the requested flexibility mitigates the incentive that plan sponsors and service providers may have to delay furnishing the materials when they may otherwise be able to send them sooner, in order to avoid accelerating subsequent compliance deadlines.” The commenters overwhelmingly support a regulatory amendment that provides some flexibility as to the timing of annual disclosures. A reasonable interpretation of their comments is that they support a buffer zone of no less than 45 days, and that such flexibility would abate the concerns mentioned above. Commenters also identified special or irregular events that warrant flexibility, including corporate mergers and changes in recordkeepers, investment lineups, plan years (e.g., from fiscal to calendar year), or law.

    No commenter objected to giving plan administrators some flexibility, or suggested that flexibility would harm participants and beneficiaries or hinder their ability to direct their investments. Two commenters, in fact, suggested just the opposite. One of them observed that “[r]esolving this concern will also benefit plan participants because it will facilitate expedited furnishing of the materials when it is feasible for providers and plan sponsors to do so.” The other observed “it is common for plans to periodically change the menu of investment options available to participants and, in such circumstances, a plan may find it helpful to slightly delay distribution of an otherwise due comparative chart until the new investment options are set.”

    The overall objective of the “participant-level fee disclosure” regulation is to make sure participants and beneficiaries in participant-directed individual account plans are furnished the information they need, on a regular and periodic basis, to make informed decisions about the management of their individual accounts and the investment of their retirement savings. While deadlines are needed to avoid irregular and non-periodic disclosures, flexible deadlines alone do not undermine the overall objective of the regulation.

    Based on the foregoing, the Department has decided to replace the definition contained in paragraph (h)(1) of the current regulation with a new definition that provides a buffer requested by the commenters. The current regulatory language states that the term at least annually thereafter “means at least once in any 12-month period, without regard to whether the plan operates on a calendar or fiscal year basis.” Today's direct final rule replaces “12-month period” with “14-month period.” Thus, the definition, as amended by this rulemaking, states that the term at least annually thereafter “means at least once in any 14-month period, without regard to whether the plan operates on a calendar year or fiscal year basis.” It is the Department's view that this definition achieves the correct balance by ensuring that participants and beneficiaries will receive annual disclosures on a consistent and regular basis, and without unwarranted delays in-between disclosures, while at the same time offering plan administrators some flexibility.

    The Department also requests comments on whether a similar adjustment is needed for the “at least quarterly” definition in paragraph (h)(2) of the regulation.6 Today's direct final rule has no effect on the definition contained in paragraph (h)(2). No commenter identified problems with this definition or requested an adjustment similar to the adjustment being made to the “at least annually” definition. Consequently, the Department today has no basis to make any change to this definition. The lack of comment on this definition may be due, in whole or in part, to EBSA Field Assistance Bulletin 2006-03 (providing a 45-day window for furnishing quarterly pension benefit statements required under section 105 of ERISA) and paragraph (e)(2) of 29 CFR 2550.404a-5 (which allows quarterly fee disclosures to be furnished with quarterly pension benefit statements). Commenters are encouraged to consider FAB 2006-03 if making a comment.

    6 The “at least quarterly” timing requirement in paragraph (h)(2) applies to disclosures detailing administrative and individual expenses “actually charged” to individual accounts.

    Temporary Enforcement Policy

    The Department is adopting an enforcement policy, effective immediately, under which plan administrators may rely on the new definition in paragraph (h)(1) prior to the effective date of the amendment. Some plans may be preparing their next set of annual disclosures, which may be due before the effective date of the amendment. Accordingly, EBSA, as an enforcement matter, will treat a plan administrator as satisfying the timing requirement in paragraph (h)(1) of the regulation if the plan administrator complies with the new definition establishing a 2-month grace period for annual disclosures, provided that the plan administrator reasonably determines that doing so will benefit participants and beneficiaries. This enforcement policy expires on the effective date of the direct final rule without notice or any other action by the Department. If the direct final rule is withdrawn because of significant adverse comment, EBSA will provide further guidance on this enforcement policy in the Federal Register notice announcing the withdrawal of the rule. The relief under this policy is in addition to the relief previously granted under FAB 2013-02 and is available regardless of whether a plan has used the relief in such FAB 2013-02 to reset the first or second applicable annual disclosure.

    Good Cause Finding That Proposed Rulemaking Unnecessary

    Rulemaking under section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) ordinarily involves publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and provides the public with the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. However, an agency may issue a rule without prior notice and comment if it determines for good cause that prior notice and comment is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.

    The Department finds it unnecessary to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking. The Department, in FAB 2013-02, already solicited public comment on the issue of flexible timing for annual disclosures. Additional notice and comment is not likely to change the Department's conclusion that there is a need for greater flexibility, but it will delay the relief sought by the affected parties. Such delay also makes ordinary notice and comment procedures impracticable for those plan administrators who would benefit from the new definition in paragraph (h)(1) in connection with disclosures that must be furnished in the early part of 2015.

    The Department is concurrently publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register that will serve as a notice of proposal to amend part 2550 as described in this direct final rule. If the Department receives significant adverse comment during the comment period, it will withdraw this direct final rule. The Department will then address public comments in a subsequent final rule. The Department does not intend to institute a second comment period on this rule. Any parties interested in commenting must do so during this comment period.

    Regulatory Impact Analysis Executive Orders 12866

    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.

    Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule (1) Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order, OMB has determined that this regulatory action is significant within the meaning of section 3(f)(4) of the Executive Order, and therefore it will be reviewed by OMB. As discussed in the Paperwork Reduction Act section below, the Department expects this amendment to benefit plan administrators by providing flexibility when the annual disclosures are furnished with no additional cost impact.

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (RFA) imposes certain requirements with respect to Federal rules that are subject to the notice and comment requirements of section 553(b) of the APA (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) and that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Under Section 553(b) of the APA, a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required when an agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. This direct final regulation is exempt from the APA's notice and comment requirements because the Department made a good cause finding earlier in this preamble that a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not necessary. Therefore, the RFA does not apply and the Department is not required to either certify that this regulation would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department of Labor conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.

    In accordance with the requirements of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)), the Department submitted an information collection request (ICR) to OMB in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) for the current rule that was published on October 20, 2010. The information collection request was approved by OMB on October 5, 2010, under OMB Control Number 1210-0090, which currently is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2017.

    Currently, the Department has submitted an information collection for the ICR as revised by the direct final rule under the emergency procedures for review and clearance contained in 5 CFR 1320.13. A copy of the ICR may be obtained by contacting the PRA addressee shown below. The Department is hereby soliciting comments concerning the revision to the ICR currently approved under OMB Control Number 1210-0090. The Department and OMB are interested particularly in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • 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;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Comments should be sent to the PRA Addressee within the same 30-day comment period that applies for comments on the direct final rule. Any comments received will be considered when the Department submits an extension request for the emergency ICR to OMB.

    PRA Addressee: Address requests for copies of the ICR to G. Christopher Cosby, Office of Policy and Research, U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-5718, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone (202) 693-8410; Fax: (202) 219-5333. These are not toll-free numbers. ICRs submitted to OMB also are available at http://www.RegInfo.gov.

    The Department expects this amendment to have no impact on the cost or hour burden associated with the ICR, because it solely determines when the disclosures are distributed but does not affect the content of the disclosures. The timing flexibility provided by the amendment will benefit plan administrators by allowing them to combine and distribute annual disclosures with other employment and annual employee benefits communication materials, which may result a small decrease in burden; however, the Department does not have sufficient data to estimate this decrease. The Department welcomes comments regarding this assessment.

    Congressional Review Act

    This direct final rule is subject to the Congressional Review Act provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) and will be transmitted to Congress and the Comptroller General for review.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), as well as Executive Order 12875, the direct final rule does not include any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate of more than $100 million, adjusted for inflation, or increase expenditures by the private sector of more than $100 million, adjusted for inflation.

    Federalism Statement

    Executive Order 13132 (August 4, 1999) outlines fundamental principles of federalism, and requires the adherence to specific criteria by Federal agencies in the process of their formulation and implementation of policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The direct final rule does not have federalism implications because it has no substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Section 514 of ERISA provides, with certain exceptions specifically enumerated, that the provisions of Titles I and IV of ERISA supersede any and all laws of the States as they relate to any employee benefit plan covered under ERISA.

    List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2550

    Employee benefit plans, Fiduciaries, Pensions, Disclosure.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department is amending Subchapter F, Part 2550 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 2550—RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY 1. The authority citation for part 2550 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    29 U.S.C. 1135 and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2011, 77 FR 1088 (January 9, 2012). Sec. 102, Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. at 727 (2012). Sec. 2550.401c-1 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 1101. Sec. 2550.404a-1 also issued under sec. 657, Pub. L. 107-16, 115 Stat 38. Sec. 2550.404a-2 also issued under sec. 657 of Pub. L. 107-16, 115 Stat. 38. Sections 2550.404c-1 and 2550.404c-5 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 1104. Sec. 2550.408b-1 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 1108(b)(1). Sec. 2550.408b-19 also issued under sec. 611, Pub. L. 109-280, 120 Stat. 780, 972. Sec. 2550.412-1 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 1112.

    2. In § 2550.404a-5, revise paragraph (h)(1) to read as follows:
    § 2550.404a-5 Fiduciary requirements for disclosure in participant-directed individual account plans.

    (h) * * *

    (1) At least annually thereafter means at least once in any 14-month period, without regard to whether the plan operates on a calendar year or fiscal year basis.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of March 2015. Phyllis C. Borzi, Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06211 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0164] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; York River, Yorktown and Gloucester Point, VA 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 draw of the Coleman Memorial Bridge (US 17/George P. Coleman Memorial Swing Bridge) across the York River, mile 7.0, between Gloucester Point and Yorktown, VA. This deviation is necessary to facilitate maintenance work on the moveable spans on the Coleman Memorial Bridge. This temporary deviation allows the drawbridge to remain in the closed to navigation position.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on March 29, 2015 to 5 p.m. on April 4, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0164] 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. Jim Rousseau, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-6557, email [email protected] If you have questions on reviewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Virginia Department of Transportation, who owns and operates this swing bridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulation set out in 33 CFR 117.1025, to facilitate maintenance of the moveable spans on the structure.

    Under the regular operating schedule, the Coleman Memorial Bridge, mile 7.0, between Gloucester Point and Yorktown, VA, opens on signal except from 5 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the bridge shall remain closed to navigation. The Coleman Memorial Bridge has vertical clearances in the closed position of 60 feet above mean high water.

    Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridge will be closed to navigation from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Sunday March 29, 2015; with an inclement weather date from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Sunday April 4, 2015. The bridge will operate under normal operating schedule at all other times. Emergency openings cannot be provided. There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the York River. Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime and are advised to proceed with caution. All other vessels may pass before 7 a.m. and after 5 p.m.

    The York River is used by a variety of vessels including military, tugs, and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with these waterway users. The Coast Guard will also inform additional waterway users through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the closure periods for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts 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: March 10, 2015. James L. Rousseau, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06465 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2014-0436] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, St. Petersburg Beach, FL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that governs the Pinellas Bayway Structure “E” (SR 679) Bridge, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway mile 113.0, St. Petersburg Beach, FL. This will extend the time period when the bridge is subject to periodic closings. During this extended time period the bridge will not open on demand.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2014-0436]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Robert Glassman, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 305-415-6946, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Acronyms CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking § Section Symbol U.S.C. United States Code A. Regulatory History and Information

    On August 11, 2014, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, St Petersburg Beach, FL” in the Federal Register (79 FR 46740). We received 173 comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The Pinellas Bayway Structure “E” Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 25 feet at mean high water in the closed position and a horizontal clearance of 89 feet. Vessels with a height of less than 25 feet may pass through the bridge at any time. The current regulation, 33 CFR 117.287(d)(4), states Pinellas Bayway Structure “E” (SR 679) bridge, mile 113.0 at St. Petersburg Beach “shall open on signal, except that from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. the draw need open only on the hour and 30 minutes past the hour.” This modification will extend the time by two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening, allowing this Bridge to open on the hour and half-hour from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., seven days a week and continue to open on demand all other times.

    C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    Of the 173 comments received, 171 were in favor of extending the half-hour schedule by two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening. Two comments opposed extending the scheduled opening period.

    Two commenters asked if afternoon scheduled openings should end prior to 9 p.m. Vehicles exiting Fort de Soto Park to the mainland must use Pinellas Bayway Structure “E” Bridge. Fort de Soto Park closes at 8:30 p.m. Extending scheduled openings until 9 p.m. will reduce traffic for departing park visitors.

    One commenter indicated that one hour is too long to wait for a bridge opening. This rule will provide for passage two times in an hour during the period of scheduled openings. From 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. the bridge will open on the hour and on the half hour.

    One commenter voiced concern for the safety of vessels transiting to a dock or marina in a storm. Other comments recommended extending scheduled openings for the entire day, in part because it serves as a means of ingress and egress for emergency vehicles. Under Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 117.31, drawtenders are required to make reasonable efforts to have drawspans closed for emergency vehicles and opened for vessels in distress or seeking shelter from severe weather.

    One commenter asked for an exception for boat parades. If an extended closure period is necessary for a special event, the bridge owner may request a temporary change to the drawbridge operating schedule.

    No changes were made to the proposed regulatory text as a result of the comments. Therefore, paragraph (d)(4) of 33 CFR 117.287 will be revised to require opening on signal, except that from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. the draw need open only on the hour and 30 minutes past the hour.

    This rule will not unreasonably impact navigation. Both vehicle traffic and vessel traffic may need to adjust schedules to ensure that they are not unreasonably delayed.

    D. Regulatory Analyses

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

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action because vessels may still transit the Bridge at scheduled intervals and these changes will continue to meet the reasonable needs of navigation. Therefore, the rule will only have a minor impact on vessels transiting the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of St. Petersburg Beach, Florida.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels transiting the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. However, this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Vessels that can safely transit under the Bridge may do so at any time. Vessels unable to transit under the Bridge will be able to transit the Bridge at specific intervals which can be taken into account by vessel owners and operators.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

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

    6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

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

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children

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

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

    12. Energy Effects

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

    13. Technical Standards

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

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

    PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. In § 117.287, revise paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:
    § 117.287 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.

    (d) * * *

    (4) Pinellas Bayway Structure “E” (SR 679) bridge, mile 113.0 at St. Petersburg Beach. The draw shall open on signal, except that from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. the draw need open only on the hour and 30 minutes past the hour.

    Dated: February 27, 2015. J. H. Korn, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06357 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0170] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lake Washington Ship Canal, Seattle, WA 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 Washington State Department of Transportation Montlake Bridge across the Lake Washington Ship Canal, mile 5.2, at Seattle, WA. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position to accommodate the safe movement of “Beat the Bridge Run” event participants.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 7:30 a.m. on May 17, 2015 to 9 a.m. on May 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0170] 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. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Washington State Department of Transportation requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule, 33 CFR 117.1051, for the Montlake Bridge across the Lake Washington Ship Canal, mile 5.2, at Seattle, WA. The requested deviation is necessary to accommodate safe movement of “Beat the Bridge Run” event participants. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position. This deviation is effective from 7:30 a.m. on May 17, 2015 to 9 a.m. on May 17, 2015.

    The Montlake Bridge crosses the Lake Washington Ship Canal at mile 5.2 and while in the closed position provides 30 feet of vertical clearance throughout the navigation channel and 46 feet of vertical clearance throughout the center 60-feet of the bridge; vertical clearance referenced to the Mean Water Level of Lake Washington. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. Waterway users on the Lake Washington Ship Canal range from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway 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 designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: March 11, 2015. Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06289 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Parts 3 and 4 RIN 2900-AO96 Schedule for Rating Disabilities—Mental Disorders and Definition of Psychosis for Certain VA Purposes AGENCY:

    Department of Veterans Affairs.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) adopts as final, without change, an interim final rule amending its Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) dealing with mental disorders and its adjudication regulations that define the term “psychosis.” Outdated references are replaced with references to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Nomenclature used to refer to certain mental disorders is amended to conform to DSM-5. This rule also provides clarification of the applicability date.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: This rule is effective on March 19, 2015. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 19, 2015.

    Applicability Date: The provisions of this final rule shall apply to all applications for benefits that are received by VA or that are pending before the agency of original jurisdiction on or after August 4, 2014. The Secretary does not intend for the provisions of this final rule to apply to claims that were pending before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (i.e., certified for appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals on or before August 4, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, or the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on August 4, 2014, even if such claims are subsequently remanded to the agency of original jurisdiction.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ioulia Vvedenskaya, Medical Officer, VASRD Regulations Staff (211C), Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-9700. (This is not a toll-free telephone number.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    VA published an interim final rule in the Federal Register at 79 FR 45093 on August 4, 2014, to amend the portion of the VASRD dealing with mental disorders and its adjudication regulations which define the term “psychosis.” The DSM-5, which was published by the American Psychiatric Association in May 2013, provides a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders. The amendments in the interim final rule deleted outdated references to the DSM-IV and DSM-IV-TR and replaced them with references to DSM-5. Additionally, the rulemaking updated the nomenclature in the VASRD to refer to certain mental disorders to conform to DSM-5 terminology.

    VA provided a 60-day public comment period, which ended on October 3, 2014, and received no public comments in response to the publication of this interim final rule. One non-comment was received from a VA employee suggesting additional changes to Part 3 regulations which are outside the scope of this rulemaking. No changes were made as a result of the non-comment. Although no comments were received on this issue, in reviewing the interim final rule to prepare for publication of the final rule, VA determined that the applicability date should be clarified. For the reasons set forth in the interim final rule and below, we are adopting the interim final rule as final, with changes to the applicability date, as explained below.

    Upon further review, VA has amended the language of the applicability date to ensure clarity and avoid potential misapplication of this final rule. In the interim final rule, VA stated that the provisions applied to all applications for benefits that are received by VA or that are pending before the agency of original jurisdiction on or after the effective date of the interim final rule. For clarity, this language has been amended to specify that the provisions of the final rule apply to claims received by VA or pending before the agency of original jurisdiction as of August 4, 2014, the date the interim final rule was published in the Federal Register and became effective. Similarly, the interim final rule stated that the provisions did not apply to claims that were certified for appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals or were pending before the Board of Veterans' Appeals, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, or the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. For clarity, this language has been amended to specify that the provisions of the final rule do not apply to claims that were pending before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (i.e., certified for appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals on or before August 4, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, or the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on August 4, 2014, even if such claims are subsequently remanded to the agency of original jurisdiction. No other changes or amendments to the applicability date language are made.

    Incorporation by Reference

    The Director of the Federal Register approves the incorporation by reference of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) (2013) for the purposes of 38 CFR 4.125(a) in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from the American Psychiatric Association, 1000 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209-3901. You may inspect a copy at the Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420 or the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC. Although §§ 3.384 and 4.130 also mention DSM-5, incorporation by reference is not required because those sections merely refer to the DSM-5 as a source and not as a requirement. In contrast, § 4.125 requires claims adjudicators to use the DSM-5.

    Administrative Procedure Act

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3), VA found that there was good cause to dispense with advance public notice and opportunity to comment on the interim final rule and good cause to publish that rule with an immediate effective date. The interim final rule was necessary to implement immediately the Secretary's decision that health professionals must utilize the latest diagnostic standards—the DSM-5—the same standards used to diagnose and treat veterans with mental disorders—to adjudicate claims pertaining to mental disorders. Delay in the implementation of this rule would have been impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest, particularly to veterans.

    It would have been impracticable to provide opportunity for prior notice and comment for this rulemaking because a delay in implementation would have required the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to continue to diagnose mental disorders under two versions of the DSM until this regulation became effective, one for clinical purposes (under DSM-5) and one for compensation purposes (under DSM-IV). It would have been unnecessary because it was inevitable that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) would adopt the DSM-5 for diagnostic purposes because VHA clinicians have a professional duty as licensed medical practitioners to use the most current medical guidelines, in this case the DSM-5. It would have been contrary to the public interest because a delay in VBA's transition to the DSM-5 would have denied veterans timely access to benefits based on current and accurate clinical diagnostic criteria already adopted by the psychiatric community.

    The change to the references from DSM-IV and DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5 in VBA's adjudication regulations did not present a change in how mental disorders are evaluated under the VASRD, nor were any disorders removed from the VASRD. VA has reviewed the contents of the DSM-5 to ensure that, while some disabilities have been renamed, re-categorized, or consolidated into another diagnosis, all mental disorders currently listed in the VASRD are accounted for. In cases of periodic updates of clinical guidelines and medical terminology used by the medical community, such as DSM-5, VA has no authority to comment, challenge, or change the content, terminology, or nomenclature based on public comment. VA's use of the DSM-5 is limited to conforming to the most current medical standards and practices in diagnosing mental disabilities.

    For the foregoing reasons, and as explained in further detail in the interim final rule, the Secretary issued the rule as an interim final rule with immediate effect.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” which requires review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”

    The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this final rule have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of this rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at http://www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for “VA Regulations Published From FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to Date.”

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This final rule will not affect any small entities. Only certain VA beneficiaries could be directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

    Unfunded Mandates

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers and Titles

    The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and titles for this rule are 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.104, Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans; 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability; and 64.110, Veterans Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for Service-Connected Death.

    Signing Authority

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on March 12, 2015, for publication.

    List of Subjects 38 CFR Part 3

    Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, Health care, Pensions, Radioactive materials, Veterans, Vietnam.

    38 CFR Part 4

    Disability benefits, Incorporation by reference, Pensions, Veterans.

    Dated: March 13, 2015. Jeffrey M. Martin, Office Manager, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

    Based on the rationale set forth in the interim final rule published in the Federal Register at 79 FR 45093 on August 4, 2014, and in this document, VA is adopting the provisions of the interim final rule as a final rule without change.

    [FR Doc. 2015-06212 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0186; FRL-9924-57-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Preconstruction Requirements—Nonattainment New Source Review AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the District Department of the Environment (DDOE) for the District of Columbia (DC) on April 5, 2013. EPA is approving this revision to DC's nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) program in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0186. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the District of Columbia Department of the Environment, Air Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20002.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Talley, (215) 814-2117, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On December 11, 2014 (79 FR 73508), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the District of Columbia. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of revisions to DC's nonattainment NSR program, notably provisions for Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs) and preconstruction permitting requirements for major sources of fine particulate matter (PM2.5). The formal SIP revision was submitted by DDOE on April 5, 2013.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision

    Generally, the revision submitted by DDOE involves amendments to sections 199.1 (Definitions and Abbreviations) and 200 (General Permit Requirements), repealing and replacing section 204 (Permit Requirements for Sources Affecting Non-attainment Areas), repealing section 206 (Notice and Comment Prior to Permit Issuance), adding sections 208 (General and Non-attainment Areas) and 210 (Notice and Comment Prior to Permit Issuance), and adding specific definitions to section 299 (Definitions and Abbreviations). Additionally, several non-substantive, clarifying and organizational revisions to the sections mentioned herein were submitted. As described in detail in the NPR, the revisions incorporate provisions related to two Federal rulemaking actions: The 2002 “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment NSR (NSR): Baseline Emissions Determination, Actual-to-Future-Actual Methodology, Plantwide Applicability Limitations, Clean Units, Pollution Control Projects” (2002 NSR Rules); and the 2008 “Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)” (2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule). 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002) (2002 NSR Rules) and 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008) (2008 NSR Rule). The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule (as well as the 2007 “Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule” (2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule) 1 ), was the subject of litigation before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA. 2 On January 4, 2013, the court remanded to EPA both the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule and the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule. The court found that in both rules EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) solely pursuant to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title I of the CAA (subpart 1), rather than pursuant to the additional implementation provisions specific to particulate matter in subpart 4 of part D of title I (subpart 4).3 As a result, the court remanded both rules and instructed EPA “to re-promulgate these rules pursuant to subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.”

    1 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007).

    2 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

    3 The DC Circuit's opinion did not specifically address the point that implementation under subpart 4 requirements would still require consideration of subpart 1 requirements, to the extent that subpart 4 did not override subpart 1. EPA assumes that the court presumed that EPA would address this issue of potential overlap between subpart 1 and subpart 4 requirements in subsequent actions.

    As was noted in the NPR, with respect to PM2.5, DDOE submitted an attainment plan for the Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area on April 2, 2008. On January 12, 2009, EPA finalized a clean data determination for the area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, which suspended the requirement for DDOE to submit, among other things, an attainment plan SIP for the area. 74 FR 1146. Accordingly, on February 6, 2012, DDOE withdrew the attainment plan SIP, and it is no longer before EPA. Moreover, on October 6, 2014, EPA took final action to redesignate the Metro-Washington area to attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 79 FR 60081. As a result, DDOE is no longer obligated to submit a nonattainment NSR SIP revision under section 189 of the CAA addressing nonattainment NSR permitting requirements for PM2.5, including the requirements under subpart 4. Therefore, EPA has not evaluated the April 5, 2013 submittal for the purposes of determining compliance with the subpart 4 requirements. To the extent that any area is designated nonattainment for PM2.5 in the future in the Metropolitan Washington, DC area, DDOE will have to make a submission under Section 189 of the CAA addressing how its nonattainment permitting program in the D.C. SIP satisfies the CAA statutory requirements as to PM2.5, including subpart 4 and any applicable PM2.5 Federal implementation rules.

    Other specific requirements of DDOE's April 5, 2013 submittal and the rationale for EPA's approval are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.

    III. Final Action

    EPA is approving DDOE's April 5, 2013 submittal as a revision to the D.C. SIP.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rulemaking action, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of revisions to D.C.'s nonattainment NSR program, notably provisions for PALs and preconstruction permitting requirements for major sources of PM2.5 as discussed in section II of this action. The 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).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

    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 action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 18, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action pertaining to D.C.'s nonattainment NSR program may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: March 6, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart J—District of Columbia 2. In § 52.470, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by: a. Revising the entries for sections 199, 200, 204, and 299. b. Removing the entry for section 206. c. Adding in numerical order entries for sections 208 and 210.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 52.470 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Regulations and Statutes in the District of Columbia SIP State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA Approval date Additional
  • explanation
  • District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR), Title 20—Environment Chapter 1 General *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 199 Definitions and Abbreviations 11/16/12 3/19/2015 [Insert Federal Register Citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter 2 General and Non-attainment Area Permits Section 200 General Permit Requirements 11/16/12 3/19/2015 [Insert Federal Register Citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 204 Permit Requirements for Sources Affecting Non-attainment Areas 11/16/12 3/19/2015 [Insert Federal Register Citation] Previous version of Section 204 is replaced in its entirety Section 208 Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL) Permits for Major Sources 11/16/12 3/19/2015 [Insert Federal Register Citation] Added Section 210 Notice and Comment Prior to Permit Issuance 11/16/12 3/19/2015 [Insert Federal Register Citation] Added Section 299 Definitions and Abbreviations 11/16/12 3/19/2015 [ [Insert Federal Register Citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-06217 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 70 [EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0134; FRL-9924-44-Region 7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Missouri; Reporting Emission Data, Emission Fees and Process Information AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and the Operating Permits Program for the State of Missouri submitted on October 2, 2013. These revisions remove definitions that were in this rule but have been moved to the state's general definitions rule. These revisions also clarify the information required in emission reports and clarify the types and frequency of reports for the emission inventory. In addition, a revision to the emission fees section of this rule clarifies that the current emissions fee is only applicable for years 2013, 2014, and 2015 as set by Missouri statute.

    DATES:

    This direct final rule will be effective May 18, 2015, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 20, 2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0134, by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0134. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or email information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, 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 form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30 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:

    Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913-551-7028 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    I. What is being addressed in this document? II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? III. What action is EPA taking? I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve the SIP and Operating Permits Program revisions submitted by the state of Missouri for 10 CSR 10-6.110, “Reporting Emission Data, Emission Fees, and Process Information,” on October 3, 2013. Section (2) of the rule is being amended to move seven definitions from this rule to the state's general definifions rule 10 CSR 10-6.020 (and also the definitions for “reportable pollutant” and “reporting threshold” which have been moved to the state's general definitions rule but not yet submitted to EPA for SIP approval.) Section (3)(A) revised the emission fees section, which is approved under the Operating Permits Program only, and clarifies that the current emissions fee is only applicable for years 2013, 2014 and 2015 as set by Missouri statute. No changes were made to the emission fees in the rule. Section (4) of the rule is being amended to better reflect information required in emission reports and clarifies the types and frequencies of reports to be submitted to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Air Pollution Control Program for the Emissions Inventory Questionnaire. Missouri clarifies the rule by providing a table which lists the type of installation, such as, any installation that is required to obtain an operating permit, and any installation with an intermediate operating permit or a small source. The table shows various installations in the timetable for the full emissions report and/or the reduced reporting form, if applicable. The revisons to this section ensure that Missouri's rule is equivalent to EPA's Federal Air Emission Reporting Rule.

    II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision and operating permits program been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations, as well as meeting the Title V requirements. MDNR received one comment from their Air Pollution Control program regarding capitalization of the term “Full Emissions Report” and the relevant term was corrected for rule clarity. Overall, these actions strengthen the Missouri SIP and Operating Permits program by providing clarifications for the regulated public. These revisions do not negatively impact air quality, nor relax the SIP or operating permits program.

    III. What action is EPA taking?

    We are publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to these SIP and Operating Permits revisions if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

    Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Missouri's rule 10 CSR 10-6.110 described in the direct final 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 Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 18, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

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

    40 CFR Part 70

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 4, 2015. Mark J. Hague, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR parts 52 and 70 as set forth below:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart AA—Missouri 2. In § 52.1320(c) the table is amended by revising the entry for 10-6.110 to read as follows:
    § 52.1320 Identificaiton of Plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations Missouri
  • citation
  • Title State effective date EPA approval date Explanation
    Missouri Department of Natural Resources *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of Missouri *         *         *         *         *         *         * 10-6.110 Reporting Emission Data, Emission Fees, and Process Information 10/30/13 3/19/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] Section (3)(A), Emissions Fees, has not been approved as part of the SIP. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    PART 70—STATE OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAMS 3. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

    4. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by adding paragraph (dd) under Missouri to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 70—Approval Status of State and Local Operating Permits Programs Missouri

    (dd) The Missouri Department of Natural Resources submitted revisions to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.110, “Reporting Emission Data, Emission Fees, and Process Information” on October 2, 2013. The state effective date is October 30, 2013. This revision is effective May 18, 2015.

    [FR Doc. 2015-06115 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0326; FRL-9924-24] Sodium L-Lactate and Sodium DL-Lactate; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of sodium L-lactate and sodium DL-lactate when used as inert ingredients (surfactants) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest. Exponent, on behalf of Archer Daniels Midland Company, submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of sodium L-lactate and sodium DL-lactate.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective March 19, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 18, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0326, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0326 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before May 18, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0326, by one of the following methods:

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

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

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of August 1, 2014 (79 FR 44729) (FRL-9911-67), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-10693) by Exponent, 1150 Connecticut Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20036, on behalf of Archer Daniels Midland Company, 4666 E. Faries Parkway, Decatur, IL 62526. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of sodium L-lactate (CAS Reg. No. 867-56-1) and sodium DL-lactate (CAS Reg. No. 72-17-3) when used as an inert ingredients (surfactants) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Exponent, the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

    IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for sodium L-lactate and sodium DL-lactate including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with sodium L-lactate and sodium DL-lactate follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by sodium L-lactate and sodium DL-lactate as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.

    The Agency has reviewed the data submitted by the petitioner. The data submitted includes data on lactic acid. Sodium lactate, the sodium salt of lactic acid, is expected to readily disassociate into the lactate and sodium ions in the body upon ingestion. Lactic acid also typically converts to lactate in the body. Because sodium L-lactate and sodium DL-lactate readily disassociate into the lactate and sodium ions in the body, the Agency has concluded that the data on L-lactic acid (often referred to as lactic acid) can be used in conjunction with the data on another lactate salt, calcium lactate, and that these data are adequate to characterize the toxicity of sodium L-lactate and sodium DL-lactate.

    Acute oral and inhalation toxicity of lactic acid to rats and acute dermal toxicity of lactic acid to rabbits are low (oral LD50 >3,500 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg); inhalation LC50 >5 milligrams/Liter (mg/l); dermal LD50 >2,000 mg/kg). L-lactic acid is severely irritating and corrosive to rabbit skin. Dilute solutions of lactic acid are irritating to the eyes of rabbits. L-Lactic acid is not a dermal sensitizer in guinea pigs. In an oral feeding study, two groups of (strain not-specified) received daily doses of 1,000 and 2,000 mg/kg/day of sodium lactate (as lactic acid) over 14 to 16 days. Body analyses of the animals showed no accumulation of lactate. No developmental or reproductive toxicity studies are available for sodium L-lactate or sodium DL-lactate; however, a developmental toxicity study for lactic acid resulted in no maternal or developmental effects and none of the reproductive parameters were affected in mice at 570 mg/kg/day. Additionally, sodium L-lactate and DL-lactate are not expected to be mutagenic or carcinogenic based on the presence of the lactic acid metabolite in the human body. Lactic acid is transported to the liver and converted by lactic acid dehydrogenase to pyruvate. Pyruvate, in turn can be converted into free glucose, stored as glycogen, and utilized in other metabolic transformations (Krebs cycle). In addition, in a 2-year combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in rats with calcium lactate, there was no evidence of carcinogenicity or systemic toxicity at doses up to 5,000 mg/kg/day.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Sodium L-lactate and sodium DL-lactate are naturally occurring compounds and when disassociated, are normal constituents of the human body. No toxicological endpoint of concern has been identified.

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to sodium L-lactate and sodium DL-lactate, EPA considered likely exposure from the use of sodium L-lactate and sodium DL-lactate as an inert ingredient in pesticides applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest. Since no toxicological endpoint of concern has been identified and since the metabolic processes involving sodium L-lactate and sodium DL-lactate are well understood, the Agency has determined that a quantitative dietary exposure assessment is not necessary. While dietary exposure may result from the use of sodium L-lactate and sodium DL-lactate as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest, the amount of sodium L-lactate and sodium DL-lactate contained in pesticide formulations and applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest would be at levels far below its natural occurrence in foods and endogenous production in the human body.

    By comparison, L-lactic acid (CAS Reg. No. 79-33-4) is a naturally occurring compound found in many foods and is also a human metabolite that results from various biochemical pathways. Humans are generally exposed to lactic acid on a daily basis in significant quantities because it is naturally present in many food products that are derived through natural fermentation, such as cheese, yogurt, soy sauce, sourdough, meat products, and pickled vegetables.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. Dietary exposure from drinking water to sodium L-lactate and sodium DL-lactate can occur by drinking water that has been contaminated by run-off from a pesticide treated area. Since an endpoint for risk assessment was not identified, a quantitative dietary exposure assessment from drinking water for sodium L-lactate and sodium DL-lactate was not conducted.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).

    There is a potential for residential exposure to pesticide products containing sodium L-lactate and sodium DL-lactate, however, quantitative residential exposure assessment was not conducted since no endpoint of concern was identified.

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

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

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children.

    Because of the non-toxic nature of sodium L-Lactate and sodium DL-lactate, there are no threshold effects that would trigger the application of section 408(b)(2)(C).

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Taking into consideration all available information on sodium L-lactate and sodium DL-lactate, EPA has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to any population subgroup will result from aggregate exposure to sodium L-lactate and sodium DL-lactate under reasonable foreseeable circumstances. Therefore, the establishment of an exemption from tolerance under 40 CFR 180.910 for residues of sodium L-lactate and sodium DL-lactate when used as an inert ingredient (surfactant) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest, is safe under FFDCA section 408.

    V. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

    VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180.910 for sodium L-lactate (CAS Reg. No. 867-56-1) and sodium DL-lactate (CAS Reg. No. 72-17-3) when used as an inert ingredient (surfactant) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VIII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: March 12, 2015. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. Amend § 180.910, by adding alphabetically the following inert ingredients to the table to read as follows:
    § 180.910 Inert ingredients used pre- and post-harvest; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Inert ingredients Limits Uses *         *         *         *         *         *         * Sodium DL-lactate (CAS Reg. No. 72-17-3) Surfactant. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Sodium L-lactate (CAS Reg. No. 867-56-1) Surfactant. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-06373 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 46 CFR Part 502 [Docket No. 15-01] RIN 3072-AC59 Amendments to Rules Governing Service of Private Party Complaints and Documents Containing Confidential Materials AGENCY:

    Federal Maritime Commission.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule, request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Maritime Commission proposes to amend its rules governing service of private party complaints and the filing of documents containing confidential material. These revisions will add clarifying instructions for parties to proceedings.

    DATES:

    This rule will become effective June 24, 2015 unless significant adverse comments are filed prior to May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Address all comments concerning this proposed rule to: Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20573-0001, Phone: (202) 523-5725, Email: [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20573-0001, Phone: (202) 523-5725, Email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    46 CFR 502.5

    The Commission proposes to amend § 502.5 of title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations in order to instruct parties on how to request confidential treatment of their documents and how to mark confidential material. The revision requires segregation and clear marking of confidential and non-confidential information. The current confidentiality provisions in part 502 will benefit from a more consistent format.

    The revisions also correct an erroneous reference to § 502.201(i)(1)(vii) in the introductory text to § 502.5. The reference to § 502.201(i)(1)(vii) in the introductory text was intended to refer to confidential information within protective orders, but the currently cited provision does not exist. The revision corrects the citation to § 502.201(j)(1)(vii).

    46 CFR 502.113

    The Commission proposes to amend § 502.113 of title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations concerning service of private party complaints. 46 U.S.C. 41301 requires the Commission to “provide a copy of the complaint to the person named in the complaint.” This revision would clarify and memorialize that the Commission will use U.S. mail or express mail to serve the complaint. A notice is published, and will continue to be published, in the Federal Register for each private party complaint for formal adjudication that is filed with the Commission. Additionally, a full copy of the formal complaint is available on the Commission's Web site, www.fmc.gov, and available in the Commission's Docket Library. The proposed rule continues to allow for alternative service by other means by the Complainant but specifies that it may only do so after the complaint has been filed with the Commission and must inform the Commission of the method, time, and place of service. To conform to this clarification, 46 CFR 502.62(b)(1) is amended to clarify the time an answer to the complaint is due. Sections 502.304 and 502.305 are also revised to reflect that the Secretary will also serve small claims complaints filed pursuant to 46 CFR subpart S.

    List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 502

    Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal access to justice, Investigations, Lawyers, Maritime carriers, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Maritime Commission amends 46 CFR part 502 as follows:

    PART 502—RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for part 502 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 504, 551, 552, 553, 556(c), 559, 561-569, 571-596; 5 U.S.C. 571-584; 18 U.S.C. 207; 28 U.S.C. 2112(a); 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 305, 40103-40104, 40304, 40306, 40501-40503, 40701-40706, 41101-41109, 41301-41309, 44101-44106; E.O. 11222 of May 8, 1965.

    Subpart A—General Information 2. Revise § 502.5 to read as follows:
    § 502.5 Documents containing confidential materials.

    Except as otherwise provided in the rules of this part, all filings that contain information for which confidential treatment is sought or information previously designated as confidential pursuant to §§ 502.13, 502.167, 502.201(j)(1)(vii), or any other rules of this part, or for which a request for protective order pursuant to § 502.201(j) is pending, are subject to the following requirements:

    (a) Two versions of filings. Two versions of documents must be filed if a document:

    (1) Contains information previously designated by the Commission or presiding officer as confidential; or

    (2) Contains information for which confidential treatment is sought. Except as specified below, both versions must be filed in accordance with the requirements of § 502.2.

    (i) Confidential version. The confidential filing must include a cover page marked “Confidential-Restricted.” The specific confidential information must be conspicuously and clearly marked on each page, for example by highlighting or bracing. If confidentiality will end on a date certain or upon the occurrence of an event, this must be stated on the cover, e.g., “CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL [DATE],” or “CONFIDENTIAL DURING JUDICIAL REVIEW.” The confidential version of a document may be provided to the presiding officer by email but should not be filed with the Office of the Secretary by email.

    (ii) Public version. Within three business days of filing a confidential version of a filing, a public version must be filed. The public version must indicate on the cover page and on each affected page “Public Version—confidential materials excluded.” The public version must clearly indicate any information withheld, for example with blackout or braces, and its pagination and depiction of text on each page must be identical to that of the confidential version. For example, the confidential filing may read: “On January 1, 2005, complainant entered into a {25} year lease with respondent for a monthly rent of {$1,000}.” The public version would read: “On January 1, 2005, complainant entered into a { } year lease with respondent for a monthly rent of { }.” Public versions of confidential filings may be filed with the Secretary and presiding officer by email.

    (iii) Exhibits. Confidential information in exhibits should be marked as specified above. If marking within the text is not feasible, individual pages may be replaced in the public version with a page indicating that confidential material is excluded. Entire exhibits should not be excluded, only those pages containing confidential material.

    (b) Motion for confidential treatment. If confidentiality is sought for a filing containing information not previously designated as confidential by the Commission or presiding officer, the confidential filing must be accompanied by a motion justifying confidential treatment. This motion must identify the specific information in a document for which protection is sought and show good cause by demonstrating that the information is a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information pursuant to § 502.201(j)(1)(vii). The burden is on the party that wants to protect the information to show good cause for its protection. A motion is not required for information, including personal privacy and financial account numbers, redacted pursuant to § 502.13, Privacy protection for filings made with the Commission.

    (c) Use of confidential information. Confidential treatment afforded by this section is subject to the proviso that any information designated as confidential may be used by the administrative law judge or the Commission if deemed necessary to a decision in the proceeding. [Rule 5.]

    Subpart E—Proceeding; Pleadings; Motions; Replies
    § 502.62 [Amended]
    3. Amend § 502.62(b)(1) by adding “or the Complainant” after the phrase “service of the complaint by the Commission”. 4. Revise the heading for subpart H to read as follows: Subpart H—Service of Documents 5. Revise § 502.113 to read as follows:
    § 502.113 Service of private party complaints.

    (a) Complaints filed pursuant to § 502.62, amendments to complaints (unless otherwise authorized by the presiding officer pursuant to § 502.66(b)), small claims complaints filed pursuant to § 502.304, and Complainant's memoranda filed in shortened procedure cases pursuant to § 502.182, will be served by the Secretary of the Commission.

    (b) The Secretary will serve the complaint using first class mail or express mail service at the Respondent's address provided by the Complainant. If the complaint cannot be delivered, for example if the complaint is returned as undeliverable or not accepted for delivery, the Secretary will notify the Complainant.

    (c) Alternative service by Complainant. The Complainant may serve the Complaint at any time after it has been filed with the Commission. If Complainant serves the complaint, an affidavit setting forth the method, time and place of service must be filed with the Secretary within five days following service.

    (d) The presiding officer may dismiss a complaint that has not been served within thirty (30) days after the complaint was filed. [Rule 113.]

    Subpart S—Informal Procedure for Adjudication of Small Claims
    6. Revise § 502.304(d) to read as follows:
    § 502.304 Procedure and filing fee.

    (d) A copy of each claim filed under this subpart, with attachments, shall be served by the Secretary on the respondent named in the claim.

    7. Revise § 502.305(b) to read as follows:
    § 502.305 Applicability of other rules of this part.

    (b) The following sections in subparts A through Q of this part apply to situations covered by this subpart: §§ 502.2(a) (Requirement for filing); 502.2(f)(1) (Email transmission of filings); 502.2(i) (Continuing obligation to provide contact information); 502.7 (Documents in foreign languages); 502.21 through 502.23 (Appearance, Authority for representation, Notice of appearance; substitution and withdrawal of representative); 502.43 (Substitution of parties); 502.101 (Computation); 502.113 (Service of private party complaints); 502.117 (Certificate of service); 502.253 (Interest in reparation proceedings); and 502.254 (Attorney's fees in reparation proceedings). [Rule 305.]

    Karen V. Gregory, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06239 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 222 [Docket No. 140829733-5046-02] RIN 0648-BE35 2015 Annual Determination To Implement the Sea Turtle Observer Requirement AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) publishes its final Annual Determination (AD) for 2015, pursuant to its authority under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Through the AD, NMFS identifies U.S. fisheries operating in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific Ocean that will be required to take observers upon NMFS' request. The purpose of observing identified fisheries is to learn more about sea turtle interactions in a given fishery, evaluate measures to prevent or reduce sea turtle takes, and implement the prohibition against sea turtle takes. Fisheries identified on the 2015 AD (see Table 1) will be eligible to carry observers as of January 1, 2015 and will remain on the AD for a five-year period. The fisheries listed on the final determination will be required to carry observers upon NMFS' request until December 31, 2019.

    DATES:

    Effective April 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for a listing of all Regional Offices.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sara McNulty, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8402; Ellen Keane, Greater Atlantic Region, 978-282-8476; Dennis Klemm, Southeast Region, 727-824-5312; Dan Lawson, West Coast Region, 562-980-3209; Irene Kelly, Pacific Islands Region, 808-725-5141. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the hearing impaired may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Availability of Published Materials

    Information regarding the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) List of Fisheries (LOF) may be obtained at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/lof/ and information regarding Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports may be obtained at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/ or from any NMFS Regional Office at the addresses listed below:

    • NMFS, Greater Atlantic Region, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930;

    • NMFS, Southeast Region, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701;

    • NMFS, West Coast Region, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802;

    • NMFS, Pacific Islands Region, Protected Resources, 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

    Purpose of the Sea Turtle Observer Requirement

    Under the ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., NMFS has the responsibility to implement programs to conserve marine species listed as endangered or threatened. All sea turtles found in U.S. waters are listed as either endangered or threatened under the ESA. Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), loggerhead (Caretta caretta; North Pacific distinct population segment), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) sea turtles are listed as endangered. Loggerhead (Caretta caretta; Northwest Atlantic distinct population segment), green (Chelonia mydas), and olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) sea turtles are listed as threatened, except for breeding colony populations of green turtles in Florida and on the Pacific coast of Mexico, and breeding colony populations of olive ridleys on the Pacific coast of Mexico, which are listed as endangered. Due to the inability to distinguish between populations of green and olive ridley turtles away from the nesting beach, NMFS considers these turtles endangered wherever they occur in U.S. waters. While some sea turtle populations have shown signs of recovery, many populations continue to decline.

    Incidental take, or bycatch, in fishing gear is the primary anthropogenic source of sea turtle injury and mortality in U.S. waters. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take (including harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, collecting or attempting to engage in any such conduct), including incidental take, of endangered sea turtles. Pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA, NMFS has issued regulations extending the prohibition of take, with exceptions, to threatened sea turtles (50 CFR 223.205 and 223.206). The purpose of the sea turtle observer requirement and the AD is ultimately to implement ESA sections 9 and 4(d), which prohibit the incidental take of endangered and threatened sea turtles, respectively, and to conserve sea turtles. Section 11 of the ESA provides for civil and criminal penalties for anyone who violates a regulation issued pursuant to the ESA, including regulations that implement the take prohibition, as well as for the issuance of regulations to enforce the take prohibitions. NMFS may grant exceptions to the take prohibitions for activities that are covered by an incidental take statement or an incidental take permit issued pursuant to ESA section 7 or 10, respectively. To do so, NMFS must determine the activity that will result in incidental take is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the affected listed species. For some Federal fisheries and most state fisheries, NMFS has not granted an exception for incidental takes of sea turtles primarily because we lack information about fishery-sea turtle interactions.

    The most effective way for NMFS to learn about sea turtle-fishery interactions, in order to implement management measures and prevent or minimize take, is to place observers aboard fishing vessels. In 2007, NMFS issued a regulation (50 CFR 222.402) establishing procedures to annually identify, pursuant to specified criteria and after notice and opportunity for comment, those fisheries in which the agency intends to place observers (72 FR 43176, August 3, 2007). These regulations specify that NMFS may place observers on U.S. fishing vessels, commercial or recreational, operating in U.S. territorial waters, the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ), or on the high seas, or on vessels that are otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Failure to comply with the requirements under this rule may result in civil or criminal penalties under the ESA.

    NMFS will pay the direct costs for vessels to carry observers. These include observer salary and insurance costs. NMFS may also evaluate other potential direct costs, should they arise. Once selected, a fishery will be eligible to be observed for a period of five years without further action by NMFS. This will enable NMFS to develop an appropriate sampling protocol to investigate whether, how, when, where, and under what conditions incidental takes are occurring; evaluate whether existing measures are minimizing or preventing takes; and develop ESA management measures that implement the prohibitions against take and that conserve sea turtles.

    Process for Developing an Annual Determination

    Pursuant to 50 CFR 222.402, NOAA's Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA), in consultation with Regional Administrators and Fisheries Science Center Directors, developed a proposed AD identifying which fisheries are required to carry observers, if requested, to monitor potential interactions with sea turtles. NMFS provided an opportunity for public comment on any proposed determination. The determination is based on the best available scientific, commercial, or other information regarding sea turtle-fishery interactions; sea turtle distribution; sea turtle strandings; fishing techniques, gears used, target species, seasons and areas fished; and/or qualitative data from logbooks or fisher reports. The AD is based on the extent to which:

    (1) The fishery operates in the same waters and at the same time as sea turtles are present;

    (2) The fishery operates at the same time or prior to elevated sea turtle strandings; or

    (3) The fishery uses a gear or technique that is known or likely to result in incidental take of sea turtles based on documented or reported takes in the same or similar fisheries; and

    (4) NMFS intends to monitor the fishery and anticipates that it will have the funds to do so.

    For the 2015 AD, the AA used the most recent version of the annually published MMPA List of Fisheries (LOF) as the comprehensive list of commercial fisheries for consideration. The LOF includes all known state and Federal commercial fisheries that occur in U.S. waters and on the high seas. However, in preparing the AD, we do not rely on the three-part MMPA classification scheme used for fisheries on the LOF. In addition, unlike the LOF, the AD may include recreational fisheries likely to interact with sea turtles on the basis of the best available information.

    NMFS consulted with appropriate state and Federal fisheries officials to identify which fisheries, both commercial and recreational, should be considered on the AD. Recommendations were received from six state agencies. Gear types recommended for consideration included gillnet, trawl, trap/pot, pound net, seine, and hook-and line. NMFS considered all recommendations carefully in developing the proposed list of fisheries to be included. Although the comments and recommendations provided to NMFS by states were based upon the best available information on their fisheries, NMFS received more recommendations for fisheries to include on the 2015 AD than is practical based on the four previously noted criteria (50 CFR 222.402(a)). The AD is not an exhaustive or comprehensive list of all fisheries with documented or suspected takes of sea turtles. For some fisheries, NMFS may already be addressing incidental take through another mechanism (e.g., rulemaking to implement modifications to fishing gear and/or practices), may be observing the fishery under a separate statutory authority, or will consider including them in future ADs based on the four previously noted criteria (50 CFR 222.402(a)). Note also that fisheries not included on the 2015 AD may still be observed under a different authority than the ESA (e.g., MMPA, MSA).

    Notice of the final determination will be published in the Federal Register and made in writing to individuals permitted for each fishery identified on the AD. NMFS will also notify state agencies and provide notification through publication in local newspapers, radio broadcasts, and other means, as appropriate. Once included in the final determination, a fishery will remain eligible for observer coverage for a period of five years to enable the design of an appropriate sampling program and to ensure collection of sufficient scientific data for analysis. If NMFS determines that more than five years are needed to obtain sufficient scientific data, NMFS will include the fishery in the proposed AD again prior to the end of the fifth year.

    In the 2010 AD, NMFS identified 19 fisheries that were required to carry observers for a period of five years, through December 31, 2014, if requested by NMFS. Because of a lack of resources to implement new observer programs or expand existing programs, NMFS has not identified any additional fisheries on the AD since 2010. Eleven of the 19 fisheries included on the 2010 AD have been included on the 2015 AD, and are described further below. The remaining eight fisheries were summarized in the proposed 2015 AD (October 22, 2014, 79 FR 63066).

    Implementation of Observer Coverage in a Fishery Listed in the 2015 AD

    As part of the 2015 AD, NMFS has included, to the extent practicable, information on the fisheries or gear types to be observed, geographic and seasonal scope of coverage, and any other relevant information. For each of these fisheries or gear types, NMFS intends to monitor the fishery and anticipates that it will have the funds to do so. After publication of this final AD, a 30-day delay in the effective date for implementing observer coverage will follow, except for those fisheries where the AA has determined that there is good cause pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act to make the rule effective without a 30-day delay.

    The design of any observer program for fisheries identified through the AD process, including how observers would be allocated to individual vessels, will vary among fisheries, fishing sectors, gear types, and geographic regions and will ultimately be determined by the individual NMFS Regional Office, Science Center or observer program. During the program design, NMFS will be guided by the following standards for distributing and placing observers among fisheries identified on the AD and among vessels in those fisheries:

    (1) The requirement to obtain the best available scientific information;

    (2) The requirement that observers be assigned fairly and equitably among fisheries and among vessels in a fishery;

    (3) The requirement that no individual person or vessel, or group of persons or vessels, be subject to inappropriate, excessive observer coverage; and

    (4) The need to minimize costs and avoid duplication, where practicable.

    Vessels subject to observer coverage under the AD must comply with observer safety requirements specified at 50 CFR 600.725 and 50 CFR 600.746. Specifically, 50 CFR 600.746(c) requires vessels to provide adequate and safe conditions for carrying an observer and conditions that allow for operation of normal observer functions. To provide such conditions, a vessel must comply with the applicable regulations regarding observer accommodations (see 50 CFR parts 229, 300, 600, 622, 635, 648, 660, and 679) and possess a current United States Coast Guard (USCG) Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Examination decal or a USCG certificate of examination. A vessel that fails to meet these requirements at the time an observer is to be deployed on the vessel is prohibited from fishing (50 CFR 600.746(f)) unless NMFS determines that an alternative platform (e.g., a second vessel) may be used, or determines that a vessel with inadequate or unsafe facilities is not be required to take an observer under 50 CFR 222.404. In any case, all persons on a vessel must cooperate in the operation of observer functions. Observer programs designed or carried out in accordance with 50 CFR 222.404 would be required to be consistent with existing observer-related NOAA policies and regulations, such as those under the Fair Labor and Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), the Service Contract Act (41 U.S.C. 351 et seq.), Observer Health and Safety regulations (50 CFR part 600), and other relevant policies.

    Again, note that fisheries not included on the 2015 AD may still be observed under statutory authority other than the ESA (e.g., MMPA, MSA). Additional information on observer programs in commercial fisheries can be found on the NMFS National Observer Program's Web site: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/observer-home/; links to individual regional observer programs may also be found on this Web site.

    Sea Turtle Distribution

    The sea turtle distribution and ecological use of habitats that leads to the overlap of sea turtles and fisheries is critical information that NMFS uses to inform the development of the final AD. A summary of this information was included in the proposed AD (October 22, 2014, 79 FR 63066) and was considered in the development of the final 2015 AD.

    Comments and Responses

    NMFS received a total of seven comments on the proposed rule from members of the public, the State of North Carolina, and Turtle Island Restoration Network. Commenters expressed general support of the rule or fishery observer programs, some with additional suggestions and requests for the inclusion or exclusion of particular fisheries. All substantive comments are specifically addressed below. Comments on issues outside the scope of the AD were noted, but are not responded to in this final rule.

    General Comments

    Comment 1: Six commenters expressed general support of the rule.

    Response: NMFS agrees, and has included 14 fisheries on the 2015 AD to allow for increased data gathering on sea turtle bycatch in order to accomplish the purposes of the rule.

    Comment 2: The Turtle Island Restoration Network recommended that the Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico pelagic longline and highly-migratory species fisheries be divided into independent fishery listings rather than treated as a whole, to ensure that adequate observer coverage is applied and subsequent independent ESA authority given.

    Response: This recommendation is outside the scope of this rulemaking given the criteria for including fisheries on the AD as codified in the 2007 regulation (50 CFR 222.402), which specifies that NMFS will use the most recently published LOF as the comprehensive set of commercial fisheries to be considered for inclusion on the AD.

    Comments on Gillnet Fisheries

    Comment 3: The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) expressed concern on the inclusion of the North Carolina inshore gillnet fishery and recommended that the fishery not be included on the 2015 AD. This concern was based on several factors including the low level of Federal observer effort expended on the fishery since it was included in the 2010 AD, the relatively high level of observer effort associated with the state observer program, communication difficulties that inclusion can create when both state and federal observer programs interact with fishers, existence of permits and regulations to reduce sea turtle interactions within the fishery, and NMFS observer effort is already in place under MMPA authority.

    Response: After considering this recommendation, NMFS has determined the best course of action is to include the North Carolina inshore gillnet fishery on the 2015 AD. In 2013, NMFS issued an ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit (ITP) to NCDENR, Division of Marine Fisheries, for the incidental take of sea turtles in the North Carolina inshore gillnet fishery. As a requirement of the permit, NCDENR must maintain a specific level of observer coverage to monitor and track the level of incidental take that is occurring. Although NCDENR is currently observing this fishery under the authority of the ITP, the observer coverage required by the ITP does not include all areas where the fishery operates. NMFS has evaluated the entire North Carolina inshore gillnet fishery based on the AD criteria, and has determined that this fishery meets the criteria for inclusion on the 2015 AD. However, NMFS does not intend to place observers on vessels in a fishery subject to observer requirements under an ITP without discussion and coordination with the state.

    NMFS understands there may be confusion when multiple government agencies have regulatory authority to observe, resulting in both Federal and state observers within a fishery. NMFS strives to clarify and improve the communication process regarding fishery observer requirements with local, state, and other federal entities to achieve the highest possible level of compliance and coordination.

    Comment 4: The Turtle Island Restoration Network recommended that all drift gillnet fisheries be monitored, particularly the California thresher shark/swordfish drift net fishery, due to the impacts these fisheries have on sea turtles.

    Response: NMFS acknowledges that there are other fisheries, in addition to those listed on the 2015 AD, that may be a concern for sea turtles. The 2015 AD is not meant to be a comprehensive list of fisheries that interact with sea turtles or fisheries that require monitoring, but rather a focused list, based on specific inclusion criteria (see Purpose of the Sea Turtle Observer Requirement section). NMFS evaluates fisheries for inclusion on the AD on an annual basis and will re-evaluate the gillnet fisheries recommend by Turtle Island Restoration Network in future AD's. The California thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet fishery is currently listed as a Category I fishery on the LOF, and therefore NMFS may monitor this entire fishery for marine mammals, which also allows for the collection of information on sea turtle bycatch. Dedicated observer coverage of this fishery is currently a top priority of NMFS and is considered necessary and essential to the successful implementation and monitoring of the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan and Endangered Species Act requirements already in place for the fishery. Indications are that observer coverage goals and mandates for this fishery are likely to increase in the foreseeable future due to management considerations already in place. Because NMFS does not intend to monitor this fishery beyond its existing coverage under other authorities, NMFS is not including this fishery on the 2015 AD.

    Comments on Seine/Weir/Pound Net Fisheries

    Comment 5: The Turtle Island Restoration Network expressed concern that the Virginia Pound Net and U.S. Mid-Atlantic mixed species stop seine/weir/pound net fisheries were not included in the 2015 AD.

    Response: In accordance with the criteria for listing a fishery on the AD, NMFS is not including the Virginia Pound Net or the Mid-Atlantic mixed species stop seine/weir/pound net on the 2015 AD because NMFS does not intend to monitor these fisheries for sea turtle takes at this time. NMFS has observed the Virginia Pound Net fishery for sea turtle takes in the past, and NMFS currently maintains the authority to observe for marine mammals. Although these fisheries are not included on the 2015 AD, the AD is published annually and these fisheries may be considered for inclusion on a future AD.

    Comments on Longline Fisheries

    Comment 6: The Turtle Island Restoration Network commented that, although sea turtle takes occur in association with longline fisheries, no longline fishery was included in the 2015 AD and recommended that longline fisheries (particularly the Hawaii deep-set and shallow-set longline fisheries, as well as the western Pacific pelagic deep-set fishery) be included and observed if funding becomes available for NMFS to undertake additional observing effort.

    Response: NMFS agrees that sea turtle interactions occur in association with longline fisheries. However, in accordance with the criteria for listing a fishery on the AD, described above, NMFS is not including the longline fisheries noted by the Turtle Island Restoration Network on the 2015 AD because NMFS does not intend to monitor the fishery beyond the existing coverage. At this time, NMFS believes that monitoring efforts available through MMPA and MSA authorities provide sufficient monitoring coverage for assessing sea turtle interactions in longline fisheries. As noted earlier, information on sea turtles is collected whenever an interaction occurs on an observed trip. NMFS does not currently have funding available to add observer coverage specifically for the purposes of monitoring for sea turtle bycatch, and therefore these fisheries did not meet the criteria for listing on the 2015 AD. NMFS will continue to assess these and other fisheries for inclusion on future ADs.

    Fisheries Included on the 2015 Annual Determination

    NMFS includes 14 fisheries (12 in the Atlantic Ocean/Gulf of Mexico and 2 in the Pacific Ocean) on the 2015 AD. The 14 fisheries, described below and listed in Table 1, represent several gear types, including trawl, gillnet, trap/pot, and weir/seine.

    The 2014 LOF (79 FR 14418, March 14, 2014) was used as the comprehensive list of commercial fisheries to evaluate for inclusion on the AD. All of the fisheries included on the AD are also included in the 2015 LOF (79 FR 77919, December 29, 2014). The fishery name, definition, and number of vessels/persons for fisheries listed on the AD are taken from the most recent LOF. Additionally, the fishery descriptions below include a particular fishery's current classification on the MMPA LOF (i.e., Category I, II, or III); Category I and II fisheries are required to carry observers under the MMPA if requested by NMFS. As noted previously, NMFS also has authority to observe fisheries in Federal waters under the MSA and collect sea turtle bycatch information.

    Trawl Fisheries

    Interactions with trawl fisheries are of particular concern for sea turtles, because forced submergence in any type of restrictive gear can lead to lack of oxygen and subsequent death by drowning. Metabolic changes that can impair a sea turtle's ability to function can occur within minutes of forced submergence (Lutcavage et al., 1997).

    Trawls that are not outfitted with turtle excluder devices (TEDs) may result in forced submergence. Currently, only otter trawl fisheries capable of catching shrimp and operating south of Cape Charles, Virginia, and in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as trawl fisheries targeting summer flounder south of Cape Charles, Virginia, in the summer flounder fishery-sea turtle protection area (50 CFR 222.102), are required to use TEDs.

    Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico Shrimp Trawl Fishery

    The Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl fishery (estimated 4,950 vessels/persons) targets shrimp using various types of trawls; NMFS will focus on the component of the fishery that uses skimmer trawls for the 2015 AD. Skimmer trawls are used primarily in inshore/inland shallow waters (typically less than 20 ft. (6.1 m)) to target shrimp. The skimmer trawl has a rigid “L”-shaped or triangular metal frame with the inboard portion of the frame attached to the vessel and the outboard portion attached to a skid that runs along the seabed.

    Skimmer trawl use increased in response to TED requirements for shrimp bottom otter trawls. Skimmer trawls currently have no TED requirement, but are subject to tow time limits of 55 minutes from April 1 to October 31, and 75 minutes from November 1 to March 31. Skimmer trawls are used in North Carolina, Florida (Gulf Coast), Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. There are documented takes of sea turtles in skimmer trawls in North Carolina and the Gulf of Mexico. All Gulf of Mexico states, except Texas, include skimmer trawls as an allowable gear. In recent years, the skimmer trawl has become a major gear in the inshore shrimp fishery in the Northern Gulf and also has some use in inshore North Carolina. Louisiana hosts the vast majority of skimmer boats, with 2,248 skimmer and butterfly net trawlers reporting landings in 2008. In 2008, Mississippi had approximately 62 active skimmer, butterfly, and chopstick boats, Alabama had 60 active skimmer boats, and North Carolina had 97 skimmer vessels (NMFS 2014). However, skimmer vessels in North Carolina have declined in recent years to 64 active vessels in 2010.

    Skimmer trawl effort overlaps with sea turtle distribution and, as noted above, takes have been observed in this fishery. In response to high numbers of sea turtle strandings since 2010, a portion of fishery observer effort was shifted from otter trawls to the nearshore skimmer trawls in the northern Gulf of Mexico during the summers of 2012, 2013, and 2014. In 2012, 119 sea days were observed in the skimmer trawl fishery resulting in 24 observed interactions with sea turtles. In 2013, 145 sea days were observed, resulting in 8 observed interactions with sea turtles. In 2014, 82 sea days were observed, resulting in 10 observed interactions with sea turtles.

    Continued observer coverage to understand the scope and impact of turtle takes in this fishery is needed to inform management decisions on what additional actions may be necessary to minimize and prevent sea turtle takes, and further sea turtle conservation and recovery.

    The Southeastern U.S. Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl fishery is classified as Category II on the MMPA LOF, and mandatory observer coverage in Federal waters began in 2007 under the MSA. The fishery is currently observed at approximately 1% of total fishery effort. The fishery was previously included in the 2010 AD, which allowed for observer coverage to be shifted to skimmer trawls to specifically investigate bycatch of sea turtles. NMFS includes this fishery again pursuant to the criteria identified at 50 CFR 222.402(a)(1) for including a fishery on the AD, because sea turtles are known to occur in the same areas where the fishery operates, takes have been previously documented in this fishery, and NMFS intends to continue to focus observer coverage in the component of the fishery that uses skimmer trawls.

    Gulf of Mexico Mixed Species Trawl Fishery

    The Gulf of Mexico Mixed Species Trawl Fishery (estimated 20 vessels/persons) targets fish using various types of trawl gear, including bottom otter trawl gear targeting sheepshead. This fishery is located in state waters, and is classified as Category III on the MMPA LOF. NMFS has not previously required vessels operating in this fishery to carry an observer under MMPA authority, and this fishery was not included in the 2010 AD. NMFS includes this fishery in the 2015 AD pursuant to the criteria identified at 50 CFR 222.402(a)(1) for including a fishery on the AD, because sea turtles are known to occur in the same areas where the fishery operates, takes have been documented in similar gear types, mainly the shrimp trawl fishery, and NMFS intends to monitor this fishery.

    Gillnet Fisheries

    Sea turtles are vulnerable to entanglement and drowning in gillnets, especially when the gear is left unattended. The main risk to sea turtles from capture in gillnet gear is forced submergence. Sea turtle entanglement in gillnets can also result in severe constriction wounds and/or abrasions. Large mesh gillnets (e.g., 10-12 in. [25.4-30.5 cm] stretched mesh or greater) have been documented as particularly effective at capturing sea turtles. Additionally, sea turtles have been documented entangled in smaller mesh gillnets.

    Given known interactions between sea turtles and this gear type, and the need to obtain more coverage on state inshore fisheries, NMFS includes the California Halibut, White Seabass and Other Species Set Gillnet Fishery; California Yellowtail, Barracuda, and White Seabass Drift Gillnet Fishery; Chesapeake Bay Inshore Gillnet Fishery; Long Island Inshore Gillnet Fishery; North Carolina Inshore Gillnet Fishery; and Gulf of Mexico Gillnet Fishery in the 2015 AD. Each of these fisheries, with the exception of the Gulf of Mexico Gillnet Fishery, was listed on the 2010 AD.

    California Halibut, White Seabass and Other Species Set Gillnet Fishery (>3.5 in Mesh)

    The California halibut, white seabass, and other species set gillnet fishery (estimated 50 vessels/persons) targets halibut, white seabass, and other species from the U.S.-Mexico border north to Monterey Bay using 200 fathom (1,200 ft.; 366 m) gillnets with a stretch mesh size of 8.5 in (31.6 cm). Net soak duration is typically 8-10, 19-24, or 44-49 hours at a depth ranging from 15-50 fathoms (90-300 ft.; 27-91 m), with most sets from 15-35 fathoms (90-210 ft.; 27-64 m). No more than 1500 fathoms (9,000 ft.; 2,743 m) of gill or trammel net may be fished in combination for California halibut and angel shark. Fishing occurs year-round, with effort generally increasing during summer months and declining during the last three months of the year. The central California portion of the fishery from Point Arguello to Point Reyes has been closed since September 2002, following a state ban on gillnets inshore of 60 fathoms (360 ft.; 110 m). Since 1990, set gill nets have been prohibited in state waters south of Point Arguello and within 70 fathoms (420 ft.; 128 m) or one mile (1.6 km), whichever is less, around the Channel Islands. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) manages the fishery as a limited entry fishery with gear restrictions and area closures.

    This fishery is classified as Category II on the MMPA LOF, which authorizes NMFS to observe this fishery in state waters for marine mammal interactions and to collect information on sea turtles should a take occur on an observed trip. This fishery was included in the 2010 AD. This fishery was observed at 13% of all trips in 2010, 8% in 2011, and 6% in 2012. During that time, no sea turtle bycatch was observed in the fishery. Notwithstanding the fact that no sea turtle takes were documented in this fishery during this three year period, NMFS again includes this fishery pursuant to the criteria identified at 50 CFR 222.402(a)(1) for including a fishery on the AD, because it operates in the same waters that turtles are known to occur, this gear type is known to result in the incidental take of sea turtles based on documented takes, and NMFS intends to monitor this fishery.

    California Yellowtail, Barracuda, and White Seabass Drift Gillnet Fishery (Mesh Size >3.5 in. and <14 in.)

    The California yellowtail, barracuda, and white seabass drift gillnet fishery (30 vessels/persons) targets primarily yellowtail and white seabass, and secondarily barracuda, with target species typically determined by market demand on a short-term basis. Drift gillnets are up to 6,000 ft. (1,829 m) long and are set at the surface. The mesh size depends on target species and is typically 6.0-6.5 in (15-16.5 cm). When targeting yellowtail and barracuda, the mesh size must be ≥3.5 in (9 cm); when targeting white seabass, the mesh size must be ≥6 in (15.2 cm). From June 16 to March 14 not more than 20%, by number, of a load of fish may be white seabass with a total length of 28 in (71 cm). A maximum of ten white seabass per load may be taken if taken in gillnet or trammel nets with meshes from 3.5-6.0 in (9-15 cm) in length. The fishery operates year-round, primarily south of Point Conception with some effort around San Clemente Island and San Nicolas Island. This fishery is a limited entry fishery with various gear restrictions and area closures managed by the CDFG.

    This fishery is classified as Category II on the MMPA LOF, which authorizes NMFS to observe this fishery in state waters for marine mammal interactions and to collect information on sea turtles should a take occur on an observed trip. This fishery was included in the 2010 AD. This fishery was observed at 5% of all trips in 2010, 3% in 2011, and 1% in 2012. During that time, no sea turtle bycatch was observed in the fishery. Notwithstanding the fact that no sea turtle takes were documented in this fishery during this three year period, NMFS again includes this fishery pursuant to the criteria identified at 50 CFR 222.402(a)(1) for including a fishery on the AD because it operates in the same waters that turtles are known to occur, this gear type is known to result in the incidental take of sea turtles based on documented takes, and NMFS intends to monitor this fishery.

    Chesapeake Bay Inshore Gillnet Fishery

    The Chesapeake Bay inshore gillnet fishery (estimated 1,126 vessels/persons) targets menhaden and croaker using gillnet gear with mesh sizes ranging from 2.875-5 in (7.3-12.7 cm), depending on the target species. The fishery operates between the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel and the mainland. The fishery is managed under the Interstate Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) for Atlantic menhaden and Atlantic croaker. Gillnets in Chesapeake Bay also target striped bass and spot croaker.

    This fishery is classified as Category II on the MMPA LOF, and was included in the 2010 AD. There has been limited observer coverage in this fishery since 2010, with 12 observed trips in 2010, one observed trip in 2011, and three observed trips in 2013. To date, observer coverage in gillnet fisheries has focused on Federally-managed fisheries. There is a need to better understand the gear fished in state waters and the extent to which this gear interacts with sea turtles. Given the risk of interaction and the limited data currently available on interactions, NMFS again includes this fishery pursuant to the criteria identified at 50 CFR 222.402(a)(1) for listing a fishery on the AD because sea turtles are known to occur in the same areas where the fishery operates, takes have been previously documented in similar gear, the fishery operates during a period of high sea turtle strandings, and NMFS intends to monitor this fishery.

    Long Island Inshore Gillnet Fishery

    The Long Island Sound inshore gillnet fishery (estimated 20 vessels/persons) includes all gillnet fisheries operating west of a line from the north fork of the eastern end of Long Island, New York (Orient Point to Plum Island to Fishers Island) to Watch Hill, Rhode Island (59 FR 43703, August 25, 1994). Target species include bluefish, striped bass, weakfish, and summer flounder.

    This fishery is classified as Category II on the MMPA LOF and was included in the 2010 AD. There has been limited observer coverage in this fishery since 2010. To date, observer coverage in gillnet fisheries has focused on Federally-managed fisheries. However, the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Observer Program has worked with the state of New York to develop a plan to achieve observer coverage in New York state waters between 2014 and 2017, which includes approximately 250 gillnet trips annually. There is a need to better understand the gear fished in state waters and the extent to which this gear interacts with sea turtles. Given the risk of interaction and the limited data currently available on interactions, and the new partnership with the State of New York, NMFS again includes this fishery pursuant to the criteria identified at 50 CFR 222.402(a)(1) for listing a fishery on the AD. NMFS also makes this determination because sea turtles are known to occur in the same areas where the fishery operates, takes have been previously documented in similar gear, the fishery operates during a period of high sea turtle strandings, and NMFS intends to monitor this fishery.

    North Carolina Inshore Gillnet Fishery

    The North Carolina inshore gillnet fishery (approximately 1,323 vessels/persons) targets species including southern flounder, weakfish, bluefish, Atlantic croaker, striped mullet, spotted seatrout, Spanish mackerel, striped bass, spot, red drum, black drum, and shad. This fishery includes any fishing effort using any type of gillnet gear, including set (float and sink), drift, and runaround gillnet for any target species inshore of the COLREGS lines in North Carolina. This fishery is managed under state and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) interstate FMPs, applying net and mesh size regulations, and seasonal area closures in the Pamlico Sound Gillnet Restricted Area.

    NMFS issued two ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permits for the North Carolina state-wide inshore gillnet fishery to incidentally take sea turtles in 2013, and to incidentally take Atlantic sturgeon in 2014, which include all inshore, estuarine waters, including Core Sound and Pamlico Sound. The permits require the State of North Carolina to maintain a minimum of 7% observer coverage for large mesh gillnet in each state management area for the spring, summer, and fall seasons. It also requires a minimum of 2% observer coverage for small mesh gillnets. Since issuance of the sea turtle incidental take permit in September 2013, it is estimated that 261 green sea turtles (173 alive, 88 dead) and 15 Kemp's ridley sea turtles (all alive), have been incidentally taken in the inshore large mesh gillnet fishery. Additionally, one live green sea turtle was observed in the small mesh gillnet fishery.

    This fishery is classified as Category II on the MMPA LOF, and was included in the 2010 AD. NMFS has observed this fishery with limited coverage since 2010, observing 42 trips in 2010, 18 trips in 2011, 22 trips in 2012, and 28 trips in 2013. Although the state is currently required to maintain observer coverage in inshore waters, NMFS again includes this fishery pursuant to the criteria identified at 50 CFR 222.402(a)(1) for listing a fishery on the AD because sea turtles are known to occur in the same areas where the fishery operates, takes have been previously documented in this fishery, the fishery operates during a period of high sea turtle strandings, and NMFS intends to monitor this fishery.

    Gulf of Mexico Gillnet Fishery

    The Gulf of Mexico Gillnet Fishery (estimated 724 vessels/persons) operates in state inshore waters, targeting finfish, including Spanish mackerel, king mackerel, striped mullet, Florida pompano, and southern flounder using sink gillnets and strike gillnets.

    This fishery is classified as Category II on the MMPA LOF, which authorizes NMFS to observe this fishery for marine mammal interactions and to collect information on sea turtles should a take occur on an observed trip. To better characterize fishing effort and bycatch, the NMFS Southeast Gillnet Observer Program began placing observers on state commercial gillnet vessels in coastal Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama in 2012. NMFS includes this fishery in the 2015 AD because sea turtles are known to occur in the same areas where the fishery operates and takes have been documented in similar other fisheries using gillnet gear, and NMFS intends to monitor this fishery.

    Trap/Pot Fisheries

    Sea turtles are known to become entangled in the buoy lines (also called vertical lines) of trap/pot gear, and there have been anecdotal reports that sea turtles may interact with the trap/pot itself. Turtles entangled in trap/pot gear may drown or suffer injuries (and potential subsequent mortality) due to constriction by the rope or line. Takes of both leatherback and hard-shelled sea turtles have been documented in this gear type. NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO), formerly the Northeast Regional Office, established the Northeast Atlantic Sea Turtle Disentanglement Network (STDN) in 2002 to respond to entanglements in vertical lines associated with trap/pot gear. Reports of entangled sea turtles come from fishermen, boaters, and the general public. Since 2002, entanglements in vertical lines have averaged 20.4 annually. Takes in 2012 and 2013 increased significantly with 41 and 56 takes documented in each year, respectively. These numbers include all vertical line interactions, the vast majority of which were identified as trap/pot gear (as opposed to gillnet gear). A more systematic data collection on these interactions is needed to begin understanding the extent to which interactions occur in order to implement the prohibitions against takes, including preventing or minimizing takes.

    Three pot/trap fisheries were included in the 2010 AD; Atlantic Blue Crab Trap/Pot Fishery, Atlantic Mixed Species Trap/Pot Fishery, and the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic American Lobster Trap/Pot Fishery. However, limited or no observer coverage has been achieved in these fisheries since listing on the 2010 AD. While some pot/trap vessels can be observed through traditional methods, other vessels participating in these fisheries, especially in state waters, may be too small to carry observers, which create challenges for observer programs. Further discussions regarding the most appropriate and effective methodologies for observing the pot/trap fisheries will be beneficial. On June 27, 2014, NMFS published a final rule under the MMPA that will reduce the volume of vertical lines in Atlantic waters (79 FR 36586). In addition to helping conserve and recover large whales, this reduction is expected to benefit sea turtles. NMFS will continue to monitor the implementation of this rule and evaluate its effectiveness. In addition, staff from GARFO, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), and Fisheries and Oceans Canada met in December 2014 to discuss technologies that may apply to mitigating sea turtle interactions with vertical lines. Based on these discussions, the GARFO and NEFSC are developing a research plan related to vertical line and sea turtle interactions. This plan will consider observer coverage in these fisheries. New methods to more effectively monitor these fisheries may be developed and implemented as an outcome of this meeting. Based on the input from the states, NMFS again includes all three pot/trap fisheries in the 2015 AD, further described below.

    Atlantic Blue Crab Trap/Pot Fishery

    The Atlantic blue crab trap/pot fishery (estimated 8,557 vessels/persons) targets blue crab using pots baited with fish or poultry typically set in rows in shallow water. The pot position is marked by either a floating or sinking buoy line attached to a surface buoy. The fishery occurs year-round from the south shore of Long Island at 72° 30′ W. long. in the Atlantic and east of the fishery management demarcation line between the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico (50 CFR 600.105), including state waters. The fishery is managed under state FMPs.

    This fishery is classified as Category II on the MMPA LOF and was included in the 2010 AD. However, since NMFS included this fishery in the 2010 AD, NMFS has been unable to observe the fishery, as discussed above. Accordingly, NMFS again includes this fishery pursuant to the criteria identified at 50 CFR 222.402(a)(1) for listing a fishery on the AD because sea turtles are known to occur in the same areas where the fishery operates, takes have been documented in similar gear types (i.e. lobster pot fishery), and NMFS intends to monitor this fishery.

    Atlantic Mixed Species Trap/Pot Fishery

    The Atlantic mixed species trap/pot fishery (estimated 3,467 vessels/persons) targets species including hagfish, shrimp, conch/whelk, red crab, Jonah crab, rock crab, black sea bass, scup, tautog, cod, haddock, pollock, redfish (ocean perch), white hake, spot, skate, catfish, and stone crab. The fishery includes all trap/pot operations from the Maine-Canada border south through the waters east of the fishery management demarcation line between the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico (50 CFR 600.105), but does not include the following trap/pot fisheries (as defined on the MMPA LOF): Northeast/Mid-Atlantic American lobster trap/pot; Atlantic blue crab trap/pot; Florida spiny lobster trap/pot; Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico stone crab trap/pot; U.S. Mid-Atlantic eel trap/pot fisheries; and the Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico golden crab fishery (68 FR 1421, January 10, 2003). The fishery is managed under various Interstate and Federal FMPs.

    This fishery is classified as Category II on the MMPA LOF and was included in the 2010 AD. However, since listing this fishery on the 2010 AD, NMFS has been unable to observe the fishery, as discussed above. Accordingly, NMFS again includes this fishery pursuant to the criteria identified at 50 CFR 222.402(a)(1) for listing a fishery on the AD because sea turtles are known to occur in the same areas where the fishery operates, takes have been documented in similar gear types (i.e. lobster pot fishery), and NMFS intends to monitor this fishery.

    Northeast/Mid-Atlantic American Lobster Trap/Pot Fishery

    The Northeast/Mid-Atlantic American lobster trap/pot fishery (estimated 11,693 vessels/persons) targets American lobster primarily with traps, while approximately 2-3% of the target species is taken by mobile gear (trawls and dredges). The fishery operates in inshore and offshore waters from Maine to New Jersey, and may extend as far south as Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Approximately 80% of American lobster is harvested from state waters; therefore, the ASMFC has the primary regulatory role. The fishery is managed in state waters under the ASMFC Interstate FMP and in Federal waters under the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act.

    This fishery is classified as Category I on the MMPA LOF and was included in the 2010 AD. Since that time, NMFS observed 22 lobster trips in 2013 and 32 trips in 2014, with 216 observation days planned for the 2014-2015 schedule. NMFS STDN has documented 83 leatherback entanglements in lobster trap gear operating in Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey since 2002. These entanglements have occurred between May and October (STDN, unpublished data), which is the time period when observer coverage for this fishery will be focused.

    NMFS again includes this fishery pursuant to the criteria identified at 50 CFR 222.402(a)(1) for listing a fishery on the AD because sea turtles are known to occur in the same areas where the fishery operates, takes have been documented in this fishery, and NMFS intends to monitor this fishery.

    Weir/Seine/Floating Trap Fisheries

    Pound net, weir, seine and floating trap fisheries may use mesh similar to that used in gillnets, but the gear is prosecuted differently from traditional gillnets. For example, pound net leaders have a mesh component similar to a gillnet; yet sea turtles have been documented entangled in pound net leaders. Pound net leaders in the Virginia portion of the Chesapeake Bay are subject to requirements designed to reduce sea turtle bycatch. Purse seines, weirs and floating traps also have the potential to entangle and drown sea turtles, as they are set similarly to pound nets. Turtles have been documented in the pounds of pound net gear and/or weirs in Massachusetts, New York, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia. The turtles observed in these pounds have generally been alive and uninjured. In Virginia, sea turtles have been documented becoming entangled with the leader, which often results in mortality.

    Four pound net/weir/seine fisheries were included on the 2010 AD: the Mid-Atlantic haul/beach seine, the Mid-Atlantic menhaden purse seine, the Mid-Atlantic mixed species stop seine/weir/pound net, and the Virginia pound net fishery. Based on the information provided by states and the best available scientific information, NMFS includes again two of these fisheries: the Mid-Atlantic haul/beach seine fishery, Mid-Atlantic menhaden purse seine fishery, and adds the Rhode Island floating trap fishery on the 2015 AD.

    Mid-Atlantic Haul/Beach Seine Fishery

    The Mid-Atlantic haul/beach seine fishery (estimated 565 vessels/persons) targets striped bass, mullet, spot, weakfish, sea trout, bluefish, kingfish, and harvest fish using seines with one end secured (e.g., swipe nets and long seines) and seines secured at both ends or those anchored to the beach and hauled up on the beach. The beach seine system also uses a bunt and a wash net that are attached to the beach and extend into the surf. The beach seines soak for less than two hours. The fishery occurs in waters west of 72° 30′ W. long. and north of a line extending due east from the North Carolina-South Carolina border. Fishing on the Outer Banks, North Carolina occurs primarily in the spring (April to June) and fall (October to December). In the Chesapeake Bay, this gear has been historically fished in the southwest portion of the Bay with some effort in the northwest portion. Effort begins to increase in early May, peaks in early/mid-June, and continues into July. During this time, based on historical data from Virginia, approximately 100 haul seine trips occur. Beach haul seines have been documented to interact with sea turtles.

    The fishery is managed under the Interstate FMPs for Bluefish and for Atlantic Striped Bass of the Atlantic Coast from Maine through North Carolina, and is subject to Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Plan implementing regulations.

    This fishery is classified as Category II on the MMPA LOF and was included in the 2010 AD. NMFS observed this fishery at low levels prior to 2008, but it has not been observed since then. NMFS again includes this fishery pursuant to the criteria identified at 50 CFR 222.402(a)(1) for listing a fishery on the AD based on suspected interactions with sea turtles given the nature of the gear and fishing methodology in addition to effort overlapping with sea turtle distribution. In the Chesapeake Bay, the fishery operates at the same time as historically elevated sea turtle strandings, and NMFS intends to monitor this fishery.

    Mid-Atlantic Menhaden Purse Seine Fishery

    The Mid-Atlantic menhaden purse seine fishery (estimated 5 vessels/persons) targets menhaden and thread herring using purse seine gear. Most sets occur within 3 mi (4.8 km) of shore with the majority of the effort occurring off North Carolina from November to January, and moving northward during warmer months to southern New England. The fishery is managed under the Interstate FMP for Atlantic Menhaden. In the Chesapeake Bay, this fishery operates to a limited extent during a period of high sea turtle strandings (May and June). This fishery is classified as Category II on the MMPA LOF and was listed on the 2010 AD. NMFS has observed this fishery at low levels, with nine trips observed in 2010, and three trips observed in 2012. NMFS again includes this fishery pursuant to the criteria identified at 50 CFR 222.402(a)(1) for listing a fishery on the AD, given the nature of the gear and fishing methodology in addition to effort overlapping with sea turtle distribution, and NMFS intends to monitor this fishery.

    Rhode Island Floating Trap Fishery

    The Rhode Island Floating Trap Fishery (estimated nine vessels/persons) is a small fishery that sets traps similar to a weir/pound net seasonally (May-October) targeting scup, striped sea bass, and squid.

    This fishery is classified as Category III on the MMPA LOF, and NMFS has not previously required vessels operating in this fishery to carry an observer under MMPA authority. This fishery was not included in the 2010 AD. Turtles have been documented in the pounds of pound net gear and/or weirs in Massachusetts, New York, Maryland, and Virginia, which operates similarly to the Rhode Island Floating Trap Fishery. There have also been anecdotal reports of sea turtle interactions in this fishery, but bycatch levels are unknown. NMFS includes this fishery pursuant to the criteria identified at 50 CFR 222.402(a)(1) for listing a fishery on the AD because sea turtles are known to occur in the same areas where the fishery operates, takes have been documented in similar gear types, such as the Virginia and Maryland pound nets, and NMFS intends to monitor this fishery.

    Table 1—State and Federal Commercial Fisheries Included on the 2015 Annual Determination Fishery Years eligible to carry observers Trawl Fisheries Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl 2015-2019 Gulf of Mexico mixed species fish trawl 2015-2019 Gillnet Fisheries California halibut, white seabass and other species set gillnet (>3.5 in mesh) 2015-2019 California yellowtail, barracuda, and white seabass drift gillnet (mesh size >3.5 in. and <14 in.) 2015-2019 Chesapeake Bay inshore gillnet 2015-2019 Long Island inshore gillnet 2015-2019 North Carolina inshore gillnet 2015-2019 Gulf of Mexico gillnet 2015-2019 Trap/pot Fisheries Atlantic blue crab trap/pot 2015-2019 Atlantic mixed species trap/pot 2015-2019 Northeast/Mid-Atlantic American lobster trap/pot 2015-2019 Pound Net/Weir/Seine Fisheries Mid-Atlantic haul/beach seine 2015-2019 Mid-Atlantic menhaden purse seine 2015-2019 Rhode Island floating trap 2015-2019 Classification

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration at the proposed rule stage that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NMFS published the factual basis for that certification in the proposed rule, and does not repeat it here. NMFS received no comments on this certification. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none was prepared.

    The information collection for the AD is approved under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 0648-0593.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

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

    An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on the issuance of the regulations to implement this observer requirement in 50 CFR part 222, subpart D. The EA concluded that implementing these regulations would not have a significant impact on the human environment. This final rule would not make any significant change in the management of fisheries included on the AD, and therefore, this final rule would not change the analysis or conclusion of the EA. If NMFS takes a management action for a specific fishery, for example, requiring fishing gear modifications, NMFS would first prepare any environmental document required under NEPA and specific to that action.

    This final rule would not affect species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or their associated critical habitat. The impacts of numerous fisheries have been analyzed in various biological opinions, and this final rule would not affect the conclusions of those opinions. The inclusion of fisheries on the AD is not considered to be a management action that would adversely affect threatened or endangered species. If NMFS takes a management action, for example, requiring modifications to fishing gear and/or practices, NMFS would review the action for potential adverse effects to listed species under the ESA.

    This final rule would have no adverse impacts on sea turtles and may have a positive impact on sea turtles by improving knowledge of sea turtles and the fisheries interacting with sea turtles through information collected from observer programs.

    This final rule would not affect the land or water uses or natural resources of the coastal zone, as specified under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act.

    Dated: March 12, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06341 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 140728622-5225-02] RIN 0648-BE44 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Snapper Management Measures AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS implements management measures described in a framework action to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). This final rule revises the recreational accountability measures (AMs) by establishing a recreational annual catch target (ACT) and quota overage adjustment for red snapper in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf). The purpose of this final rule is to help achieve optimum yield (OY) for the Gulf red snapper resource and better ensure red snapper recreational landings do not exceed the recreational quota established in the rebuilding plan.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic copies of the framework action, which includes an environmental assessment, a regulatory impact review, and a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/reef_fish/index.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peter Hood, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone 727-824-5305; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS and the Council manage the Gulf reef fish fishery under the FMP. The Council prepared the FMP and NMFS implements the FMP through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

    On November 21, 2014, NMFS published a proposed rule for the framework action and requested public comment (79 FR 69418). The proposed rule and the framework action outline the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the actions implemented by the framework action and this final rule is provided below.

    Management Measures Contained in This Final Rule

    This final rule revises the red snapper recreational AMs to support management efforts to maintain landings within the recreational quota and to mitigate any recreational quota overages should they occur.

    Red Snapper Recreational ACT and Season Length

    This final rule establishes a red snapper recreational ACT by applying a buffer to the recreational quota that is based on the Council's annual catch limit (ACL)/ACT control rule developed in the Generic ACL/Amendment (76 FR 82044, December 29, 2011). The ACL/ACT control rule is used to determine the appropriate target catch levels that account for management uncertainty in maintaining catches at or below the ACL (quota). The control rule is intended to be applied separately to the recreational and commercial sectors because each sector has different levels of management uncertainty. The control rule recommends no buffer be applied to the quota for the red snapper commercial sector because the sector is managed by an IFQ program, has accurate landings data, and has not exceeded its quota in the last 7 years the IFQ program has been in effect. For the recreational sector, the control rule recommends applying a 20-percent buffer to the quota primarily because the recreational quota has been exceeded in 3 of the last 4 years. When the 20-percent buffer is applied to the quota, it results in an ACT of 4.312 million lb (1.956 million kg), round weight.

    This final rule also revises the procedure for determining the recreational season length (closure date). Beginning in the 2015 fishing year, the red snapper recreational season closure date will be based on when the recreational ACT will be met instead of when the recreational quota will be met. Using the ACT to set the season length serves as an in-season AM and reduces the probability of exceeding the recreational quota during a fishing year from 50 percent to 15 percent.

    Red Snapper Recreational Post-Season AM

    This final rule also revises the recreational AMs to include a quota overage adjustment (payback) should the recreational quota be exceeded while the red snapper stock is overfished. If red snapper are overfished and the recreational quota is exceeded, then in the year following the overage, the recreational quota will be reduced by the amount of the recreational quota overage in the prior fishing year, unless the best scientific information available determines that a greater, lesser, or no overage adjustment is necessary. If the quota is adjusted, the recreational ACT will also be reduced to maintain the 20-percent buffer between the ACT and the adjusted quota.

    Comments and Responses

    NMFS received a total of 40 public comments on the proposed rule: 2 Comments from non-governmental organizations, 4 comments from fishing organizations, and the rest from individuals. Ten commenters submitted suggestions for the reef fish fishery that were outside the scope of the framework and the proposed rule, including comments related to reallocation between sectors, regional management, area closures, different fishing seasons, making red snapper a gamefish, and establishing a recreational tag system. A number of commenters also expressed opinions about the status of the red snapper stock. Eleven commenters stated general opposition to the rule, while 4 commenters expressed general support for the rule. Only specific comments related to the actions contained in the framework and the proposed rule as well as NMFS' respective responses are summarized below.

    Comment 1: Accountability measures, such as ACTs and payback provisions are unreasonable requirements because the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) was never designed to count, in real-time, the number of red snapper being harvested by anglers, and so these measures cannot be used for in-season quota monitoring.

    Response: NMFS disagrees that managing the recreational sector for Gulf red snapper with an ACT and requiring a payback is unreasonable. NMFS agrees that MRIP is not designed to count landings in real time. This is why the Federal red snapper recreational fishing season begins each year on June 1, and with implementation of this final rule, will remain open until the ACT is projected to be reached. The MRIP information, in combination with other landings and effort information, is used to project season lengths and is not used for in-season monitoring. Using the ACT to set the season accounts for uncertainty in the projections and is a reasonable method to help ensure the recreational quota is not exceeded. However, if the quota is exceeded, the payback provision mitigates possible biological consequences to the stock resulting from the overage. Using an ACT and a payback in this manner is consistent with the National Standard 1 Guidelines.

    Comment 2: After any red snapper recreational quota overage, the ACT should be reset using the Council's ACL/ACT control rule rather than just reducing the recreational quota by a fixed percentage. This would allow the buffer to change in response to changing management conditions.

    Response: NMFS disagrees that the ACT should be reset using the ACL/ACT control rule after a recreational quota overage. The ACT is not intended to address quota overages. The ACT is used to account for management uncertainty in setting the recreational season and is intended to help ensure that the quota is not exceeded. If a quota overage does occur, the payback provision, which reduces the quota by the amount of the overage and also reduces the ACT to keep a consistent 20 percent buffer, mitigates for that excess harvest. Keeping a consistent buffer of 20 percent between the quota and ACT provides for more stable management of the recreational sector. If new information indicates that a 20 percent buffer may no longer be appropriate, the Council can consider revising the ACT. The ACL/ACT control rule would be used to determine one alternative for an appropriate buffer. The Council would also consider other reasonable alternatives before deciding whether to adjust the ACT.

    Comment 3: No AMs should be applied to the recreational sector until there is better data to determine red snapper recreational harvest.

    Response: NMFS disagrees that no AMs should be applied to the recreational sector until some unspecified time in the future. AMs are required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the AMs implemented in this final rule are consistent with that requirement and the National Standard 1 Guidelines. Further, estimates of red snapper landings used to support implementation of the AMs in this final rule are based on the best scientific information available as required by National Standard 2. Currently, NMFS uses historical landings data to project the length of the Federal season. This landings information is obtained from MRIP-based private angler/charter survey; the Southeast Region Headboat Survey; the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries creel survey, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department creel survey. NMFS agrees there are opportunities to improve the landings data collection process and is collaborating with many of the Gulf states' marine fisheries resource agencies to make improvements in both data collection and data analysis.

    Comment 4: Because the red snapper allocation between the commercial and recreational sectors does not accurately reflect the actual use of the resource by the recreational sector, the AMs are unreasonable requirements.

    Response: NMFS disagrees that the AMs implemented by this rule are unreasonable requirements. As explained above, AMs are required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and both the ACT and payback provision are consistent with the National Standard 1 Guidelines. The framework action developed by the Council did not consider and this rule does not address the red snapper allocation between the recreational and commercial sectors. Thus, to the extent this comment is advocating for a change in the current allocation, it is beyond the scope of the current rulemaking. However, NMFS notes that the Council is currently evaluating alternatives to the current red snapper allocation in Amendment 28 to the FMP.

    Comment 5: Introducing further restrictions, like ACTs and paybacks, on the red snapper recreational sector would have detrimental economic impacts to the sector and coastal communities supported by recreational fishing. These impacts would be large because the recreational sector contributes more money into the local economies and creates more jobs than the commercial sector.

    Response: NMFS recognizes the economic importance of the recreational sector to many coastal communities; however, as discussed in the proposed rule and above, the Council has determined that implementing the ACT and payback provisions are necessary for the management of the recreational sector. Although the AMs are expected to result in economic losses to recreational fishing participants and their communities, the AM alternatives that were selected are expected to best achieve the objectives of the framework action while minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse economic effects.

    Comment 6: The payback provision states that the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to reduce the recreational quota by the amount of the quota overage unless the best scientific information available determines that a greater, lesser, or no overage adjustment is necessary. How will this determination be made?

    Response: NMFS will make the final determination about whether the best scientific information available shows that something other than a payback of 100 percent of the quota overage is necessary. However, NMFS anticipates that this scientific information will likely come from a red snapper stock assessment and would also be reviewed by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee. The rationale for an overage adjustment, if different from 100 percent, would be described in the Federal Register notice that is published when AMs are implemented.

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS has determined that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf red snapper and is consistent with the framework action, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

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

    A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared for this action. The FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), a summary of the significant economic issues raised by public comment, NMFS' responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. The FRFA follows.

    No public comments specific to the IRFA were received and, therefore, no public comments are addressed in this FRFA. Some comments with indirect socio-economic implications were received and these are addressed in the comments and responses section of this rule. No changes in the final rule were made in response to public comments.

    This final rule establishes a red snapper recreational ACT; revises the procedure for determining the recreational season length (closure date); and, adds a quota overage adjustment (payback) should the recreational quota be exceeded while the red snapper stock is overfished.

    NMFS agrees that the Council's choice of preferred alternatives will best achieve the Council's objectives for the framework action while minimizing, to the extent practicable, the adverse effects on fishers, support industries, and associated communities. The preamble of the proposed rule and this final rule provide a statement of the need for and objectives of this final rule, and it is not repeated here.

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this final rule. Accordingly, this final rule does not implicate the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    NMFS expects this final rule to directly affect federally permitted for-hire vessels operating in the Gulf reef fish fishery. The for-hire sector is comprised of charter boats and headboats (party boats). Although charter boats tend to be smaller in length, on average, than headboats, the key distinction between the two types of operations is how the fee is determined. On a charter boat trip, the fee charged is for the entire vessel, regardless of how many passengers are carried, whereas the fee charged for a headboat trip is paid per individual angler.

    A Federal Gulf charter/headboat permit has been required for reef fish since 1996 and the sector currently operates under a limited access permit system. In 2013, there were 1,190 valid (non-expired) or renewable Gulf of Mexico Charter/Headboat Reef Fish Permits. A renewable permit is an expired permit that may not be actively fished, but is renewable for up to 1 year after expiration. Although the for-hire permit application collects information on the primary method of operation, the permit itself does not identify the federally permitted vessel as either a headboat or a charter boat. Operation as either a headboat or charter boat is not restricted by the Federal permitting regulations, and vessels may operate in both capacities. However, only federally permitted headboats are required to submit harvest and effort information to NMFS' HBS. Participation in the HBS is based on determination by the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) that the vessel primarily operates as a headboat. In 2013, 70 Gulf vessels were registered in the HBS. As a result, 1,120 of the vessels with a valid or renewable reef fish charter/headboat permit are expected to operate as charter boats. The average charter boat is estimated to earn approximately $83,000 (2013 dollars) in gross annual revenue and the average headboat is estimated to earn approximately $251,000 (2013 dollars) in gross annual revenue.

    The Small Business Administration established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including fish harvesters and for-hire operations. A business involved in finfish harvesting is classified as a small business if independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and its combined annual receipts are not in excess of $20.5 million (NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing) for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. For for-hire vessels, all qualifiers apply except that the annual receipts threshold is $7.5 million (NAICS code 487210, recreational industries).

    Based on the revenue figures above, all for-hire vessels expected to be directly affected by this final rule are determined for the purpose of this analysis to be small business entities. Because all entities expected to be affected by this rule are small entities, NMFS has determined that this final rule will affect a substantial number of small entities. In addition, because all entities affected by this rule are small entities, the issue of disproportionate effects on small versus large entities does not arise in the present case.

    Establishing an ACT, which serves as the basis for estimating the length of the recreational red snapper fishing season, is expected to reduce net operating revenues (the return used to pay all labor wages, returns to capital, and owner profits) of all Gulf reef fish for-hire vessels (charter and headboats) by a combined total of approximately $2.286 million (2013 dollars) in the first year this rule is implemented. If there are no recreational quota overages, this amount will be the annual net operating revenue loss to the for-hire vessels. If recreational quota overages occur in a fishing year, and red snapper are overfished, net operating revenues will further decrease in the following fishing year with the application of 100 percent of the recreational quota overage reduction from the following year's quota. In effect, establishing a payback provision will tend to increase the potential losses in net operating revenue to the for-hire vessels.

    An important feature associated with the payback provision is the uncertainty of the occurrence and level of overages. Under the proposed buffer of 20 percent for deriving the ACT from the recreational quota, the probability of exceeding the quota is estimated at 15 percent. At this probability level, the occurrence of an overage is relatively low. However, should an overage occur, the overage level could be insignificant or could be substantial. If the quota overage is low, the net operating revenue loss to the for-hire vessels will be approximately equivalent to the amount estimated above ($2.286 million). If the quota overage is substantial, it could result in setting the ACT at zero the following year. In this case, net operating revenue loss to the for-hire vessels will be relatively substantial, with some unknown number of for-hire businesses possibly exiting the industry as a result of revenue loss. The year after that overage adjustment, however, the recreational quota and the corresponding ACT will be restored as there would be no overages in the previous year if the ACT had been set at zero. Assuming no increases in the recreational red snapper quota, for-hire vessels will continue to lose the amount of net operating revenue estimated above. A recreational quota increase will alleviate some of the losses to the for-hire vessels.

    The following discussion analyzes the alternatives that were not selected as preferred by the Council. Five alternatives, including the preferred alternative (as fully described in the preamble), were considered for setting a red snapper recreational ACT. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would not establish an ACT. This alternative is associated with the highest probability of exceeding the recreational quota and so would not address the need to better control the recreational harvest to the sector's quota. The other three alternatives would establish an ACT by applying a buffer of 30 percent, 40 percent, or 60 percent to the quota. Relative to the preferred alternative, each of these three alternatives would result in a lower ACT, and therefore greater loss in net operating revenues for the for-hire component of the recreational sector. For this reason, the three alternatives were not selected.

    Three alternatives, including the preferred alternative (as fully described in the preamble), were considered for establishing a payback provision in case of recreational quota overages. It is noted that the payback provision only applies when red snapper are overfished. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would not establish a payback provision. This alternative would not address the need to mitigate for overages that may negatively impact the rebuilding plan, and thus was rejected. The second alternative would establish a 100-percent recreational quota payback provision, similar to the preferred alternative, and in addition would further reduce the adjusted ACT in the following season by 100 percent, 50 percent, or 30 percent of the quota overage. The adjusted ACT is derived by applying the 20-percent buffer to the quota after the recreational quota is reduced by the amount of overage. This alternative, together with any of its additional options to further reduce the following season's overage adjusted ACT, would be expected to result in higher net operating revenue losses for the for-hire sector, and therefore was rejected.

    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as small entity compliance guides. As part of the rulemaking process, NMFS prepared a fishery bulletin, which also serves as a small entity compliance guide. The fishery bulletin will be sent to all interested parties.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

    Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf, Quotas, Recreational, Red Snapper.

    Dated: March 13, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:

    PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC 1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In § 622.41, paragraph (q) is added to read as follows:
    § 622.41 Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs).

    (q) Red snapper—(1) Commercial sector. [Reserved]

    (2) Recreational sector. (i) The AA will determine the length of the red snapper recreational fishing season based on when recreational landings are projected to reach the recreational ACT specified in paragraph (q)(2)(iii) of this section, and announce the closure date in the Federal Register. This will serve as an in-season accountability measure. On and after the effective date of the recreational closure notification, the bag and possession limit for red snapper is zero.

    (ii) In addition to the measures specified in paragraph (q)(2)(i) of this section, if red snapper recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the applicable quota specified in § 622.39(a)(2)(i), and red snapper are overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to reduce the recreational quota by the amount of the quota overage in the prior fishing year, and reduce the recreational ACT specified in paragraph (q)(2)(iii) of this section (based on the buffer between the ACT and the quota specified in the FMP), unless the best scientific information available determines that a greater, lesser, or no overage adjustment is necessary.

    (iii) The recreational ACT for red snapper is 4.312 million lb (1.956 million kg), round weight.

    [FR Doc. 2015-06294 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 53 Thursday, March 19, 2015 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 [NRC-2014-0275] RIN 3150-AJ52 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec HI-STORM Flood/Wind System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1 AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Holtec International, Inc. (Holtec), HI-STORM Flood/Wind (FW) System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to add Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1032. Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, allows these casks to accept 14X14B fuel assemblies with minor changes in the internal diameter of the fuel cladding, diameter of the fuel pellet, and spacing between the fuel pins. The amendment also updates testing requirements for the fabrication of Metamic HT neutron-absorbing structural material.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by April 20, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

    • Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0275. 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.

    • Email comments to: [email protected] If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301-415-1677.

    • Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301-415-1101.

    • Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

    • Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert D. MacDougall, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5175, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0275 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-2014-0275.

    • 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 O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0275 in the subject line of your comment submission.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

    II. Procedural Background

    This proposed rule is limited to adding Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, which will supersede Amendment No. 1 (effective December 17, 2014), to CoC No. 1032 to the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” and does not include other aspects of the Holtec HI-STORM FW System design. Amendment No. 1 continues to be effective but is now being modified with respect to certain specified provisions, as outlined in Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, which apply to all general licensees using the casks for Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSIs). Therefore, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, supersedes the previously issued Amendment No. 1 (effective December 17, 2014). In requesting this revision, Holtec indicated that no ISFSI licensee has placed such a cask into service under CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1.

    Because the NRC considers this action noncontroversial and routine, the NRC is publishing this proposed rule concurrently with a direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register. The direct final rule will become effective on June 2, 2015. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this proposed rule by April 20, 2015, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws the direct final rule. If the direct final rule is withdrawn, the NRC will address the comments received in response to these proposed revisions in a subsequent final rule. Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action in the event the direct final rule is withdrawn.

    A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

    (1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

    (a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

    (b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

    (c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.

    (2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

    (3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or Technical Specifications (TSs).

    For additional procedural information and the regulatory analysis, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register.

    III. 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 “[t]]he 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 which added a new subpart K in part 72 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 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 in 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 subsequently issued a final rule on October 3, 2014 (79 FR 59623), that approved the HI-STORM FW System design amendment and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214 as CoC No. 1032, Amendment 1.

    IV. 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 that also follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and the intended audience. 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). The NRC requests comment on the proposed rule with respect to clarity and effectiveness of the language used.

    V. 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 below.

    Document ADAMS Accession No./
  • Web link/
  • Federal Register
  • citation
  • Proposed CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1 ML14276A621 Proposed CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, Appendix A to the Technical Specifications ML14276A618 Proposed CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, Appendix B to the Technical Specifications ML14276A617 CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, Preliminary SER ML14276A620 Holtec International HI-STORM Flood/Wind Multipurpose Canister Storage System, License Amendment Request 1032-2, July 31, 2013 ML13214A023 Submittal of Response to First Request for Additional Information for License Amendment Request No. 2 to the Holtec International HI-STORM Flood/Wind Multi-Purpose Canister Storage System, November 5, 2013 ML13311A103

    The NRC may post materials related to this proposed rule, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking Web site at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2014-0275. 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-2014-0275); (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; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is proposing to adopt 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. In § 72.214, Certificate of Compliance No. 1032 is revised to read as follows:
    § 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks.

    Certificate Number: 1032.

    Initial Certificate Effective Date: June 13, 2011.

    Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: December 17, 2014, superseded by Amendment Number 1, Revision 1, on [DATE 75 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

    Amendment Number 1, Revision 1, Effective Date: [DATE 75 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

    SAR Submitted by: Holtec International, Inc.

    SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the Holtec HI-STORM FW System.

    Docket Number: 72-1032.

    Certificate Expiration Date: June 12, 2031.

    Model Numbers: HI-STORM FW MPC-37, MPC-89.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of March, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Mark A. Satorius, Executive Director for Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06366 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration 29 CFR Part 2550 RIN 1210-AB68 Fiduciary Requirements for Disclosure in Participant-Directed Individual Account Plans—Timing of Annual Disclosure AGENCY:

    Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This document proposes to amend the Department of Labor's “participant-level fee disclosure” regulation by making a technical adjustment to an annual timing requirement. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this issue of the Federal Register, we are making this same amendment as a direct final rule. If we receive no significant adverse comment, the direct final rule will go into effect and we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If, however, we receive significant adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. In that case, we will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Any parties interested in commenting must do so during this comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1210-AB68 (Fiduciary Requirements for Disclosure in Participant-Directed Individual Account Plans—Timing of Annual Disclosure), by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include RIN 1210-AB68 in the subject line of the message.

    Mail or Hand Delivery: Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-5655, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Comments received by the Department of Labor will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.dol.gov/ebsa, and made available for public inspection at the Public Disclosure Room, N-1513, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, including any personal information provided. Warning: Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or other confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments may be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines. No deletions, modifications, or redactions will be made to the comments received, as they are public records. Comments may be submitted anonymously. Persons submitting comments electronically are encouraged not to submit paper copies.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eric A. Raps, Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, (202) 693-8532. This is not a toll-free number.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's Federal Register, the Department of Labor published a direct final rule that amends the definition of the term “at least annually thereafter” contained in 29 CFR 2550.404a-5(h)(1) by substituting the term “14-month period” for the term “12-month period.” This Federal Register notice incorporates by reference and proposes the same amendment contained in the direct final rule. Please refer to the preamble and the regulatory text of the direct final rule for details, including information and analyses under applicable Executive Orders, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Paperwork Reduction Act, and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of March 2015. Phyllis C. Borzi, Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06210 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2014-0764] RIN 1625-AA00, 1625-AA87 Safety Zones, St. Petersburg Captain of the Port Zone AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish several safety zones within the Sector St. Petersburg Captain of the Port Zone. This action would establish safety zones restricting port operations in the event of reduced or restricted visibility or disasters including hurricanes. It would also establish safety zones around firework platforms, structures or barges during the storage, preparation, and launching of fireworks.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number using any one of the following methods:

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

    (2) Fax: (202) 493-2251.

    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 366-9329.

    See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these three methods.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Omar La Torre Reyes, Sector St. Petersburg Waterways Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (813) 228-2191, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking COTP Captain of the Port A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number USCG-2014-0764 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

    2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2014-0764) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    B. Regulatory History and Information

    This proposed regulatory amendment will add safety zone regulations regarding port restrictions due to hurricanes and other disasters, reduced or restricted visibility as well as a safety zone around all fireworks barges, structures, and piers.

    C. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this proposed rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 U.S.C. 1225; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    The purpose of these regulations are to ensure the safety of life on navigable waters of the United States through the addition of regulations regarding port regulations in the event of hurricanes and other disasters and reduced or restricted visibility. It will establish a safety zone around all firework barges, structures, and piers.

    D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This rule would establish three sections under 33 CFR 165.702: (1) A safety zones dictating port closures during hurricanes and other disasters; (2) seven segments of Tampa Bay's shipping channel to give the COTP flexibility in controlling and reconstituting vessel traffic during periods of reduced or restricted visibility; and (3) a safety zone around all fireworks launching platforms, structures, or piers while engaged in launching operations. Notice will be given via Local Notice to Mariners.

    E. Regulatory Analyses

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

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

    Due to the unexpected and quick nature of hurricanes and other disasters, emergency temporary final rules are implemented for each individual event. This regulation is not significant regulatory action and will reduce time and paper work since an emergency temporary final rule would not have to be implemented each time. This proposed rule provides advance notice of actions the Coast Guard intends to take in the event a natural disaster occurs.

    There are already several special local regulations establishing regulated areas around fireworks events. The safety zone that is being added is not expected to have a significant regulatory action due to the use of safety zones temporary final rules for each event.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

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

    6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

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

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

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

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

    12. Energy Effects

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

    13. Technical Standards

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

    14. Environment

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1225, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 165.780 to read as follows:
    § 165.780 Safety Zone; Hurricanes and other Disasters in Western Florida.

    (a) Regulated Areas. The following areas are established as a safety zone during the specified conditions:

    (1) All waters within the Sector St. Petersburg Captain of the Port zone encompassing all navigable waters or tributaries between or within Fenholloway River through Chokoloskee Pass, Florida.

    (2) All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.

    (b) Definitions.

    (1) Designated Representative means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the COTP, in the enforcement of regulated navigation areas, safety zones, and security zones.

    (2) Hurricane Port Condition WHISKEY means condition set when weather advisories indicates sustained gale force winds (39-54 mph/34-47 knots) from a tropical or hurricane force storm are predicted to make landfall at the port within 72 hours.

    (3) Hurricane Port Condition X-Ray means condition set when weather advisories indicates sustained gale force winds (39-54 mph/34-47 knots) from a tropical or hurricane force storm are predicted to make landfall at the port within 48 hours.

    (4) Hurricane Port Condition YANKEE means condition set when weather advisories indicate that sustained gale force winds (39-54 mph/34-47 knots) from a tropical or hurricane force storm are predicted to make landfall at the port within 24 hours.

    (5) Hurricane Port Condition ZULU means condition set when weather advisories indicate that sustained gale force winds (39-54 mph/34-47 knots) from a tropical or hurricane force storm are predicted to make landfall at the port within 12 hours.

    (c) Regulations. (1) Hurricane Port Condition WHISKEY. All vessel and port facilities must exercise due diligence in preparation for potential storm impacts. Ports and waterfront facilities shall begin removing all debris and secure potential flying hazards. Container stacking plans shall be implemented. Waterfront facilities that, due to space constraints, are unable to reduce container stacking height to no more than four high, must submit a container stacking protocol to the Captain of the Port (COTP).

    (2) Hurricane Port Condition X-Ray. All vessels and port facilities shall ensure that potential flying debris is removed or secured. Hazardous materials/pollution hazards must be secured in a safe manner and away from waterfront areas. Facilities continue to implement container stacking protocol. Containers must not exceed four tiers unless previously approved by the COTP. Containers carrying hazardous materials may not be stacked above the second tier. All oceangoing commercial vessels greater than 500-gross tons must prepare to depart the ports and anchorages within Tampa Bay. These vessels shall depart immediately upon the setting of Port Condition Yankee. Slow-moving vessels may be ordered to depart to ensure safe avoidance of the incoming storm. A COTP Order will be issued to vessels asked to depart early. COTP orders requiring vessel departure will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Vessels that are unable to depart the port must contact the COTP to request and receive permission to remain in port. Proof of facility owner/operator approval is required. Vessels with COTP's permission to remain in port must implement their approved mooring arrangement. Terminal operators shall prepare to terminate all cargo operations. The COTP may require additional precautions to ensure the safety of the ports and waterways. Coast Guard Port Assessment Teams will be deployed to validate implementation of Port Condition X-Ray. The COTP will convene the Port Heavy Weather Advisory Group (PHWAG) as deemed necessary.

    (3) Hurricane Port Condition YANKEE. Affected ports are closed to inbound vessel traffic. All oceangoing commercial vessels greater than 500-gross tons must have departed Tampa Bay. Appropriate container stacking protocol must be completed. Terminal operators must terminate all cargo operations not associated with storm preparations: Cargo operations associated with storm preparations include moving cargo within or off the port for securing purposes, crane and other port/facility equipment preparations, and similar activities, but do not include moving cargo onto the port or vessel loading/discharging operations unless specifically authorized by the COTP. All facilities shall continue to operate in accordance with approved Facility Security Plans and comply with the requirements of the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA). Anticipate drawbridges may be closed to vessel traffic as early as eight hours prior to the arrival of tropical storm force winds. Coast Guard Port Assessment Teams will conduct Port Condition Yankee validation. The COTP will convene the Port Heavy Weather Advisory Group (PHWAG) as deemed necessary.

    (4) Hurricane Port Condition ZULU. All port waterfront operations are suspended excepting final preparations as expressly permitted by the COTP necessary to ensure the safety of the ports and facilities. Coast Guard Port Assessment Teams will conduct final port assessments.

    (5) Emergency Restrictions for Other Disasters. Any natural or other disasters that are anticipated to affect the Sector St. Petersburg Captain of the Port zone will result in the prohibition of commercial vessel traffic transiting or remaining in the port or facility operations.

    3. Add § 165.781 to read as follows:
    § 165.781 Safety Zone; Restricted Visibility in Tampa Bay.

    (a) Regulated Areas. The following areas are established as safety zones during the specified conditions:

    (1) Zone 1 (Interbay) means all navigable waters within a box marked by the following coordinates: 27°52′56″ N, 82°29′44″ W; thence to 27°52′50″ N, 82°23′41″ W; thence to 27°57′27″ N, 82°23′50″ W thence to 27°57′19″ N, 82°29′39″ W. This encompasses all navigable waterways north of Hillsborough Cut “C” Channel LB “25” (LLNR 23445) & “26” (LLNR 23450).

    (2) Zone 2 (East Tampa/Big Bend) means all navigable waters within a box marked by the following coordinates: 27°52′50″ N, 82°23′41″ W; thence to 27°46′36″ N; 82°24′04″ W; thence to 27°46′29″ N, 82°31′21″ W; thence to 27°52′59″ N, 82°31′24″ W. This zone encompasses all navigable waterways between Hillsborough Cut “C” Channel LB “25” (LLNR 23445) & “26” (LLNR 23450) to Cut “6F” (LLNR 22830) Channel.

    (3) Zone 3 (Old Tampa Bay) means all navigable waters within a box marked by the following coordinates: 27°46′29″ N, 82°31′21″ W; 28°01′58″ N, 82°31′39″ W; thence to 28°02′01″ N, 82°43′20″ W; thence to 27°46′15″ N, 82°43′24″ W. This zone encompasses all navigable waterways between all of Old Tampa Bay to Cut “6F” (LLNR 22830) Channel.

    (4) Zone 4 (Middle Tampa Bay) means all navigable waters within a box marked by the following coordinates: 27°46′34″ N, 82°34′04″ W; thence to 27°38′40″ N, 82°31′54″ W; thence to 27°44′38″ N, 82°40′44″ W; thence to 27°46′15″ N, 82°40′46″ W. This zone encompasses all navigable waterways between Cut “6F” (LLNR 22830) Channel to Tampa Bay “1C” (LLNR 22590).

    (5) Zone 5 (Lower Tampa Bay/Manatee) means all navigable waters within a box marked by the following coordinates: 27°44′33″ N, 82°40′37″ W; thence to 27°58′59″ N, 82°40′34″ W; thence to 27°36′18″ N, 82°38′57″ W; thence to 27°34′10″ N, 82°34′50″ W; thence to 27°37′56″ N, 82°31′15″ W. This zone encompasses all navigable waterways between Tampa Bay “1C” (LLNR 22590) to Sunshine Skyway Bridge.

    (6) Zone 6 (Mullet Key) means all navigable waters within a box marked by the following coordinates: 27°38′59″ N, 82°40′35″ W; thence to 27°36′44″ N, 82°44′13″ W; thence to 27°32′20″ N, 82°44′37″ W; thence to 27°31′18″ N, 82°38′59″ W; thence to 27°34′09″ N, 82°34′53″ W; thence to 27°36′15″ N, 82°39′00″ W. This zone encompasses all navigable waterways between the Sunshine Skyway Bridge to Mullet Key Channel LB “21” (LLNR 22365) & “22” (LLNR 22370).

    (7) Zone 7 (Egmont Entrance) means all navigable waters within the area encompassed by the following coordinates: 27°36′27″ N, 82°44′14″ W; thence to 27°39′46″ N, 82°44′45″ W; thence to 27°39′36″ N, 83°05′10″ W; thence to 27°32′29″ N, 83°04′50″ W; thence to 27°32′21″ N, 82°44′42″ W. This zone includes the fairway anchorages.

    (b) Definition. (1) Designated Representative means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the COTP, in the enforcement of regulated navigation areas, safety zones, and security zones.

    (c) Regulations. (1) Vessel should not commence an inbound, shift, or outbound transit during periods where visibility is less than one nautical mile due to fog or inclement weather.

    (2) The COTP may open or close Tampa Bay or specific zones to vessel traffic described in the regulated areas section of this chapter.

    4. Add § 165.782 to read as follows:
    § 165.782 Safety Zone; Firework Displays in Captain of the Port Zone St. Petersburg, Florida.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following area is established as a safety zone during the specified conditions: All waters within the Sector St. Petersburg COTP Zone within a 500-yard radius of all firework platforms, structures or barges during the storage, preparation, and launching of fireworks. Designated representatives may reduce the 500-yard zone based on prevailing conditions and enforcement needs.

    (1) The Coast Guard realizes that some large scale events, such as those with many participants or spectators, or those that could severely restrict navigation or pose a significant hazard, may still require separate special local regulations or safety zones that address the specific peculiarities of the event. In those situations, the Coast Guard will create special local regulations or safety zones specifically for the event, and those regulations will supersede the proposed regulations in this rule.

    (2) All firework platforms, structures or barges will also have a sign on their port and starboard side labeled “FIREWORKS—STAY AWAY”. This sign will consist of 10-inch high by 1.5-inch wide red lettering on a white background. Shore fireworks site that affect navigable waterways will display a sign with the aforementioned specifications.

    (b) Definition.

    Designated Representative means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the COTP, in the enforcement of regulated navigation areas, safety zones, and security zones. Captain of the Port (COTP) for the purpose of this section means the Commanding Officer of Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg. Captain of the Port St. Petersburg Zone is defined in 33 CFR 3.35-35.

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

    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain in the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg via telephone at (727) 824-7506, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain in the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.

    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or by on-scene designated representatives. Fireworks platforms, piers, and structures will also have signs to notify the public of the danger and to keep away.

    (4) This regulation does not apply to authorized law enforcement agencies operating within the regulated area.

    Dated: February 11, 2015. G. D. Case, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05743 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 70 [EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0134; FRL-9924-43-Region 7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Missouri; Reporting Emission Data, Emission Fees and Process Information AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and the Operating Permits Program for the State of Missouri submitted on October 2, 2013. These revisions remove definitions that were in this rule but have been moved to the state's general definitions rule. These revisions also clarify the information required in emission reports and clarify the types and frequency of reports for the emission inventory. In addition, a revision to the emission fees section of this rule is being clarified so that the current emissions fee is only applicable for years 2013, 2014, and 2015 as set by Missouri statute.

    DATES:

    Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0134, by mail to Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7028, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the final rules section of the Federal Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP and Title V revisions to 10 C.S.R. 10-6.110 “Reporting Emission Data, Emission Fees, and Process Information” as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

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

    40 CFR Part 70

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 4, 2015. Mark J. Hague, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06126 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD 49 CFR Part 845 RIN 3147-AA02 [Docket No. NTSB-GC-2012-0002] Rules of Practice in Transportation: Investigative Hearings; Meetings; Reports; and Petitions for Reconsideration AGENCY:

    National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The NTSB is proposing to amend provisions within its regulations, which contains the NTSB's procedures for holding investigative hearings, various types of meetings, issuing reports, and responding to petitions for reconsideration. This notice proposes a number of substantive and technical changes. In particular, the NTSB proposes to reorganize parts of its regulations into different subparts to ensure the part is easy to follow.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by May 18, 2015. Comments received after the deadline will be considered to the extent possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this NPRM, published in the Federal Register (FR), is available for inspection and copying in the NTSB's public reading room, located at 490 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594-2003. Alternatively, a copy is available on the government-wide Web site on regulations at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID Number NTSB-GC-2012-0002).

    You may send comments identified by Docket ID Number NTSB-GC-2012-0002 using any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Send comments to NTSB Office of General Counsel, 490 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594-2003.

    Facsimile: Fax comments to 202-314-6090.

    Hand Delivery: Bring comments to 490 L'Enfant Plaza East SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For more information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Tochen, General Counsel, (202) 314-6080.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On June 25, 2012, the NTSB published a notice indicating its intent to undertake a review of all NTSB regulations to ensure they are updated. 77 FR 37865. The NTSB initiated this review in accordance with Executive Order 13579, “Regulation and Independent Regulatory Agencies” (76 FR 41587, July 14, 2011). The purpose of Executive Order 13579 is to ensure all agencies adhere to the key principles found in Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), which include promoting public participation in rulemaking, improving integration and innovation, promoting flexibility and freedom of choice, and ensuring scientific integrity during the rulemaking process in order to create a regulatory system that protects public health, welfare, safety, and the environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. The NTSB explained in its June 25, 2012, notice that it is committed to ensuring its regulations remain updated and comply with these principles.

    The NTSB's notice concerning its plan for reviewing all NTSB regulations indicated the NTSB would specifically conduct a comprehensive review of 49 CFR part 831, which describes the NTSB's investigative process. The NTSB completed this review and published an NPRM proposing various changes to part 831 on August 12, 2014. 79 FR 47064.

    The NTSB published an additional notice in the Federal Register on January 8, 2013, describing the NTSB's plan for updating all regulations. 78 FR 1193. In accordance with these two notices published in the Federal Register, the NTSB reviewed all sections within 49 CFR part 845, in the interest of ensuring they accomplish the objectives stated in Executive Order 13563. The NTSB publishes this NPRM in accordance with the NTSB's plan.

    II. Description of Changes

    The NTSB proposes reorganizing 49 CFR part 845 and adding two new sections to describe Board meetings concerning NTSB products. The current version of part 845 consists of three general sections (titled “Applicability,” “Nature of hearing,” and “Sessions open to the public”) followed by four subparts (titled “Initial procedure,” “Conduct of hearing,” “Board reports,” and “Public record”). The NTSB carefully has reviewed part 845 and determined the current format could be improved for clarity and ease of understanding. In addition, part 845 does not discuss Board meetings concerning investigations and NTSB products, even though meetings concerning such topics are a key component of the Board's work and provide transparency in agency activities and operations. Therefore, the NTSB proposes organizing part 845 into three subparts, titled “Investigative hearings,” “Meetings,” and “Reports.”

    Subject to a number of proposed changes, this NPRM would maintain most of the text from the existing sections addressing investigative hearings, which are currently codified at sections 845.2 (“Nature of hearing”), 845.3 (“Sessions open to the public”), 845.10 (“Determination to hold hearing”), 845.11 (“Board of inquiry”), 845.12 (“Notice of hearing”), 845.13 (“Designation of parties”), 845.20 (“Powers of chairman of board of inquiry”), 845.21 (“Hearing officer”), 845.22 (“Technical panel”), 845.23 (“Prehearing conference”), 845.24 (“Right of representation”), 845.25 (“Examination of witnesses”), 845.26 (“Evidence”), 845.27 (“Proposed findings”), 845.28 (“Stenographic transcript”), and 845.29 (“Payment of witnesses”). The NTSB suggests changes to the text of these sections, which include changing terminology to describe transportation events and substituting “NTSB” in place of the term “Board,” unless the term “Board” refers to the statutorily appointed members of the Board. The NTSB also proposes numbering these sections sequentially within the proposed subpart addressing investigative hearings.

    In order to ensure the initial sections of part 845 are clear, the NTSB proposes removing the term “formal issues” from § 845.2, which currently states (in part), “[s]uch hearings are fact-finding proceedings with no formal issues and no adverse parties . . .” The term “formal issues” is not a legal term of art, and is not defined in NTSB regulations. The NTSB does not believe the inclusion of this term in § 845.2 is necessary. In addition, the NTSB proposes reorganizing the text of § 845.2 to explain the purpose of an investigative hearing is to develop further the facts, conditions, and circumstances of the transportation event. The NTSB also proposes including text stating investigative hearings are not conducted for the purpose of determining the rights or liabilities of any person. The NTSB proposes this language because, in recent years, witnesses and parties who attend investigative hearings have been involved in ongoing litigation relating to the subject of a hearing with greater frequency or may become involved in litigation. In this section, the NTSB seeks to emphasize the purpose of investigative hearings is to obtain accurate, complete, and well-documented factual information related to NTSB investigations.1

    1 Part 845 does not apply to oral arguments before the Board under 49 CFR part 821, which governs appeals of aviation certificate enforcement actions.

    In addition, the NTSB proposes removing a sentence from the existing version of 845.11 (“Board of inquiry”), which currently states, “[a]ssignment of a Member to serve as the chairman of each board of inquiry shall be determined by the Board.” The NTSB believes such assignments are internal agency procedures. As a result, the agency does not believe it is necessary to codify a procedure specifying how the Board might assign a Member to serve as the chairman of each board of inquiry. The NTSB will handle such assignments via Board policies.

    As a point of clarification, the NTSB notes it does not suggest changes to the text of proposed section § 845.15 (“Payment of witnesses”); this text is duplicative of the existing text of § 845.29. However, the NTSB notes its practice is to pay witnesses who would not attend if the agency did not pay the travel expenses associated with attendance. In addition, we note the Invitational Travel statute, codified at 5 U.S.C. 5703, allows the NTSB to reimburse a speaker or witness if the person is providing a direct service to the agency for which he or she is not receiving any compensation.

    Regarding the proposed new subpart addressing Board meetings, the NTSB proposes two new sections. The first section, to be codified at 845.20 (“Meetings”), states the Board may hold a meeting when the Board determines such a meeting is in the public interest.

    The NTSB also proposes adding § 845.21 (“Symposiums, forums, and conferences”) to apply some of the provisions of § 845.20 to symposiums, forums, and conferences. The NTSB proposes three paragraphs within the new § 845.21, the first of which will provide definitions for these three types of proceedings. The NTSB proposes adding within paragraph (a) of § 845.21 the statement, “these proceedings are related to transportation safety matters and will be convened for the purpose of focusing attention, raising awareness, encouraging dialogue, educating the NTSB, or generally advancing or developing safety recommendations.” This proposed version of paragraph (a)(2) will also state the “goals of the proceeding will be clearly articulated and outlined, and will be consistent with the mission of the NTSB.” The NTSB also proposes adding paragraph (b) within § 845.21, to clarify a quorum of the Board is not required to participate in symposiums, forums, or conferences.

    Also in paragraph (b), the NTSB proposes adding a statement that symposiums, forums, and conferences are not intended to be used as a means to obtain evidence or establish facts for a particular NTSB investigation. The NTSB expects this language will provide clarity to potential participants or people who are interested in attending an NTSB symposium, forum, or conference. The proposed language also provides the proceedings may have a relationship to previous, ongoing, or future investigative activities, the purpose of which is to provide supporting and collaborative information, but not to obtain direct evidence for a specific investigation.

    Following paragraph (b), the NTSB proposes paragraph (c), which simply states participation in a symposium, forum, or conference is voluntary. This statement will clarify the NTSB will not issue a subpoena for attendance at such proceedings. The paragraphs within § 845.21 will function to educate the public and the transportation community that the NTSB may hold forums, symposiums, and conferences, to fulfill Congress's intent of ensuring NTSB staff and Board Members remain educated and adhere to a well-rounded approach for improving transportation safety in a variety of ways.

    In the new subpart C of part 845 (“Reports”), the NTSB proposes keeping the text of existing §§ 845.40 (currently titled “Accident report”), 845.41 (“Petitions for reconsideration or modification”), 845.50 (“Public dockets”), and 845.51 (“Investigation to remain open”) largely unchanged, but updating the terminology in these sections, and re-codifying them with sequential numbers beginning at § 845.30.

    In § 845.30, to be titled, “Board products,” the NTSB proposes maintaining essentially unchanged within paragraph (a) the text currently in § 845.40(a), which describes reports. The NTSB proposes adding language to § 845.30(a)(2) pointing out the Board, consistent with longstanding agency process and procedure, allows the appropriate office director to issue a brief, which will include the probable cause and relevant facts, conditions, and circumstances concerning the event investigated. The Board has delegated to office directors the authority to issue such determinations in 49 CFR 800.25. Section 845.30(a)(2), as proposed, includes a description of “brief” as a document that includes the probable cause and relevant facts, conditions, and circumstances. The proposed language includes a citation to § 800.25, which provides office directors the authority to determine the probable cause by issuing such briefs. In addition, the NTSB proposes adding a new paragraph to § 845.30 to describe safety recommendations, which the Board may adopt and issue as a stand-alone Board product outside the context of a specific report or other type of Board product.

    The NTSB proposes including the section discussing public dockets immediately following the section describing reports and briefs, as NTSB public dockets contain information supporting the statements in reports and briefs. Within § 845.31, the NTSB proposes only a few minor changes, such as including a reference to the definition of “public docket” in § 801.3 of this chapter, and removing the term “accident,” to ensure consistency with the NTSB's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for changes to 49 CFR part 831.2 The NTSB also proposes updating paragraph (c), which advises the public of how it might access material in the public docket. The NTSB places public dockets on its Web page at www.ntsb.gov, to allow the public to download them free of charge. Therefore, the NTSB proposes adding its Web site link to § 845.31(c).

    2 79 FR 47064 (Aug. 12, 2014). The NPRM concerning proposed changes to 49 CFR part 831 explained the NTSB's proposal to modify its terminology within its regulations by utilizing the term “event,” and, in some sections, other descriptive terms. Id. at 47065.

    The NTSB proposes moving the section currently located at 49 CFR 845.41 (“Petitions for reconsideration or modification”) to § 845.32. The NTSB also proposes organizing this section with headings for each paragraph, to ensure the public and interested parties can easily follow it. The first proposed heading will be titled “requirements,” and will state the requirements applicable to submissions of petitions for reconsideration or modification currently listed in scattered places within § 845.41. Therefore, the “requirements” paragraph (§ 845.32(a)) will state only individuals or entities having a “direct interest” in the investigation may submit petitions. The paragraph will also require petitions be in writing and be based on the discovery of new evidence or a showing the Board's findings were erroneous.

    The NTSB proposes titling the second paragraph as “acceptance of petitions,” which will include some of the same text as is currently located in § 845.41. The NTSB, however, proposes to delete the statement the Board will not consider petitions filed by an individual or entity who could have submitted proposed findings, as described in the current version of § 845.27. Individuals and entities have interpreted § 845.41 to mean they cannot submit a petition for reconsideration. Under the current text, if the individual or entity failed to submit a comment, the individual or entity would ostensibly waive the right to petition the Board for reconsideration. However, the NTSB is unlikely to prohibit such an individual or entity from later filing a petition for reconsideration. As a result, in the proposed version of § 845.13, the NTSB removes the statement that it will not consider petitions for reconsideration from an individual or entity who could have submitted proposed findings.

    The NTSB also proposes retaining the requirement that any individual or entity filing a petition for reconsideration or modification submit with its petition proof it served the petition on all parties to the investigation or investigative hearing. The paragraph will also include the deadline of 90 days, within which interested individuals or entities may file comments to the petition. These provisions within the “proof of service” paragraph are currently located at 49 CFR 845.41(b) of the NTSB's regulations.

    Lastly, the NTSB proposes titling § 845.32(d) “oral presentation.” The current version of § 845.41(c) includes the same provisions as this new paragraph, but dividing it into two portions, the first of which states oral presentation will not normally be a part of the proceedings within part 845, and the second of which states the Board, upon granting a request for an oral presentation, will specify which issues will be addressed at the presentation. The NTSB believes dividing this paragraph into two numbered sentences, as well as using the term “party or interested person,” will provide greater clarity.

    The NTSB proposes moving § 845.51 (“Investigation to remain open”) to § 845.33. The NTSB plans to retain the title “investigation to remain open,” with the addition of the word “event.”

    III. Regulatory Analysis

    This NPRM is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of the potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. As such, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this proposed rule under Executive Order 12866. Likewise, this proposed rule does not require an analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1501-1571, or the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347.

    In addition, the NTSB has considered whether this NPRM would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The NTSB certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this NPRM would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the NTSB will submit this certification to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the Small Business Administration. Moreover, the NTSB does not anticipate this NPRM will have a substantial, direct effect on state or local governments or will preempt state law; as such, this NPRM does not have implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This NPRM also complies with all 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. In addition, the NTSB has evaluated this NPRM under: Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights; Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks; Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use; and the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, 15 U.S.C. 272 note. The NTSB has concluded that this NPRM does not contravene any of the requirements set forth in these Executive Orders or statutes, nor does this NPRM prompt further consideration with regard to such requirements.

    The NTSB invites comments relating to any of the foregoing determinations and notes the most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

    List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 845

    Administrative practice and procedure, Investigations, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the NTSB proposes to amend 49 CFR part 845 as follows:

    Title 49—Transportation PART 845—RULES OF PRACTICE IN TRANSPORTATION: INVESTIGATIVE HEARINGS; MEETINGS; AND REPORTS; PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION 1. The authority citation for 49 CFR part 845 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    Sec. 515, Pub. L. 106-554, App. C, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-153 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note); 49 U.S.C. 1112, 1113(f), 1116, 1131, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Revise part 845 to read as follows: 845.1 Applicability of part. Subpart A—Investigative Hearings 845.2 Investigative hearings. 845.3 Sessions open to the public. 845.4 Determination to hold hearing. 845.5 Board of inquiry. 845.6 Designation of parties. 845.7 Hearing officer. 845.8 Technical panel. 845.9 Prehearing conference. 845.10 Right of representation. 845.11 Examination of witnesses. 845.12 Evidence. 845.13 Proposed findings. 845.14 Transcript. 845.15 Payment of witnesses. Subpart B—Meetings 845.20 Meetings. 845.21 Symposiums, forums, and conferences. Subpart C—Miscellaneous Provisions 845.30 Board products. 845.31 Public docket. 845.32 Petitions for reconsideration or modification of report. 845.33 Investigation to remain open. PART 845—RULES OF PRACTICE IN TRANSPORTATION: INVESTIGATIVE HEARINGS; MEETINGS; AND REPORTS; PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
    § 845.1 Applicability.

    Unless otherwise specifically ordered by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the provisions of this part shall govern all NTSB proceedings conducted under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 1113 and 1131, and reports issued by the Board.

    Subpart A—Investigative Hearings
    § 845.2 Investigative hearings.

    Investigative hearings are convened to assist the NTSB in further developing the facts, conditions, and circumstances of the transportation event, which will ultimately assist the Board in determining the cause or probable cause of the event, and in ascertaining measures that will tend to prevent such events and promote transportation safety. Investigative hearings are fact-finding proceedings with no adverse parties. They are not subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 554), and are not conducted for the purpose of determining the rights, liabilities, or blame of any person or entity.

    § 845.3 Sessions open to the public.

    (a) All investigative hearings shall normally be open to the public. However, no person shall be allowed at any time to interfere with the proper and orderly functioning of the hearing.

    (b) Sessions shall not be open to the public when evidence of a classified nature or which affects national security is to be received.

    § 845.4 Determination to hold hearing.

    (a) The Board may order an investigative hearing as part of an investigation whenever a hearing is deemed necessary in the public interest.

    (b) If a quorum of the Board is not immediately available, the determination to hold an investigative hearing may be made by the Chairman of the Board.

    § 845.5 Board of inquiry.

    (a) Composition of board of inquiry. The board of inquiry shall consist of a chairman of the board of inquiry, as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, and other members in accordance with Board policy.

    (b) Duties of board of inquiry. The board of inquiry shall examine witnesses and secure, in the form of a public record, facts pertaining to the event under investigation and surrounding circumstances and conditions from which the Board may determine probable cause and may formulate recommendations and/or other documents for corrective or preventative action.

    (c) Chairman of board of inquiry.

    (1) The NTSB will provide notice of the time and place of the investigative hearing to all known interested persons.

    (2) The chairman of the board of inquiry, or his or her designee, shall have the following powers:

    (A) To designate parties to the investigative hearing and revoke such designations;

    (B) To open, continue, or adjourn the investigative hearing;

    (C) To determine the admissibility of and to receive evidence and to regulate the course of the investigative hearing;

    (D) To dispose of procedural requests or similar matters; and

    (E) To take any other appropriate action to ensure the orderly conduct of the investigative hearing.

    § 845.6 Designation of parties.

    (a) The chairman of the board of inquiry shall designate as parties to the investigative hearing those persons and organizations whose participation in the hearing is deemed necessary in the public interest and whose special knowledge will contribute to the development of pertinent evidence. Parties to the investigative hearing shall be represented by suitable representatives who do not occupy legal positions.

    (b) No party to the investigation and/or investigative hearing shall be represented by any person who also represents claimants or insurers. Failure to comply with this provision shall result in loss of status as a party to the investigative hearing.

    § 845.7 Hearing officer.

    The investigative hearing officer, upon designation by the NTSB Chairman, shall have the following powers:

    (a) To give notice concerning the time and place of investigative hearing;

    (b) To administer oaths and affirmations to witnesses; and

    (c) To issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and production of documents. The investigative hearing officer may, in consultation with the chairman of the board of inquiry and the Managing Director, add witnesses until the time of the prehearing conference.

    § 845.8 Technical panel.

    The appropriate office director(s) and/or the hearing officer, in consultation with the NTSB Managing Director, shall determine if a technical panel is needed and, if so, shall designate members of the NTSB technical staff to participate in the investigative hearing. Members of the technical panel may conduct pre-screening of witnesses through interviews, and may take other actions to prepare for the hearing. At the hearing, the technical panel will initially examine the witnesses through questioning. The technical panel shall examine witnesses and secure, in the form of a public record, facts pertaining to the event under investigation and surrounding circumstances and conditions.

    § 845.9 Prehearing conference.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the chairman of the board of inquiry shall hold a prehearing conference with the parties to the investigative hearing at a convenient time and place prior to the hearing. At the prehearing conference, the parties shall be advised of the witnesses to be called at the investigative hearing, the areas in which they will be examined, and the exhibits that will be offered in evidence.

    (b) At the prehearing conference, parties to the investigative hearing shall submit copies of any additional documentary exhibits they desire to offer for admission at the hearing.

    (c) A party to the investigative hearing who, at the time of the prehearing conference, fails to advise the chairman of the board of inquiry of additional exhibits he or she intends to submit, or additional witnesses he or she desires to examine, shall be prohibited from introducing such evidence unless the chairman of the board of inquiry determines for good cause shown that such evidence should be admitted.

    (d) Expedited hearings. The board of inquiry may hold an investigative hearing on an expedited schedule. The chairman of the board of inquiry may hold a prehearing conference for an expedited investigative hearing. When an expedited investigative hearing is held, the chairman of the board of inquiry may waive the requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section concerning the identification of witnesses, exhibits or other evidence.

    § 845.10 Right of representation.

    Any person who appears to testify at an investigative hearing has the right to be accompanied, represented, or advised by counsel or by any other representative.

    § 845.11 Examination of witnesses.

    (a) Examination. In general, the technical panel shall initially examine witnesses. Following such examination, parties to the investigative hearing shall be given the opportunity to examine such witnesses. The board of inquiry shall then conclude the examination following the parties' questions.

    (b) Objections.

    (1) Materiality, relevancy, and competency of witness testimony, exhibits, or physical evidence shall not be the subject of objections in the legal sense by a party to the investigative hearing or any other person.

    (2) Such matters shall be controlled by rulings of the chairman of the board of inquiry on his or her own motion. If the examination of a witness by a party to the investigative hearing is interrupted by a ruling of the chairman of the board of inquiry, the party shall have the opportunity to show materiality, relevancy, or competency of the testimony or evidence sought to be elicited from the witness.

    § 845.12 Evidence.

    In accordance with § 845.2, the chairman of the board of inquiry shall receive all testimony and evidence that may be of aid in determining the probable cause of the transportation event. He or she may exclude any testimony or exhibits that are not pertinent to the investigation or are merely cumulative.

    § 845.13 Proposed findings.

    Following the investigative hearing, any party to the hearing may submit proposed findings to be drawn from the testimony and exhibits, a proposed probable cause, and proposed safety recommendations designed to prevent future events. The proposals shall be submitted within the time specified by the investigative hearing officer at the close of the hearing, and shall be made a part of the public docket. Parties to the investigative hearing shall serve copies of their proposals on all other parties to the hearing.

    § 845.14 Transcript.

    A verbatim report of the investigative hearing shall be taken. Any interested person may obtain copies of the transcript from the NTSB or from the court reporting firm preparing the transcript upon payment of the fees fixed therefor. (See part 801, subpart G, Fee schedule.)

    § 845.15 Payment of witnesses.

    Any witness subpoenaed to attend the investigative hearing under this part shall be paid such fees for travel and attendance for which the hearing officer shall certify.

    Subpart B—Meetings
    § 845.20 Meetings.

    The Board may hold a meeting concerning an investigation or Board product, as described in § 804.3 of this chapter or any other circumstance, when the Board determines holding a meeting is in the public interest.

    § 845.21 Symposiums, forums, and conferences.

    (a)(1) Definitions. (i) A symposium is a public proceeding focused on a specific topic, where invited participants provide presentations of their research, views or expertise on the topic and are available for questions.

    (ii) A forum is a public proceeding generally organized in a question-and-answer format with various invited participants who may make presentation and are available for questioning by the Board or designated NTSB staff as individuals in a panel format.

    (iii) A conference is a large, organized proceeding where individuals present materials, and a moderator or chairperson facilitates group discussions.

    (2) These proceedings are related to transportation safety matters and will be convened for the purpose of focusing attention, raising awareness, encouraging dialogue, educating the NTSB, or generally advancing or developing safety recommendations. The goals of the proceeding will be clearly articulated and outlined, and will be consistent with the mission of the NTSB.

    (b) A quorum of Board Members is not required to attend a forum, symposium, or conference. All three types of proceedings described in paragraph (a) of this section may have a relationship to previous or ongoing investigative activities; however, their purpose is not to obtain evidence for a specific investigation.

    (c) Symposiums, forums, and conferences are voluntary for all invited participants.

    Subpart C—Miscellaneous Provisions
    § 845.30 Board products.

    (a) Reports of investigations. (1) The Board will adopt a report on the investigation. The report will set forth the relevant facts, conditions and circumstances relating to the event and the probable cause thereof, along with any appropriate safety recommendations and/or safety alerts formulated on the basis of the investigation. The scope and format of the report will be determined in accordance with Board procedures.

    (2) The probable cause and facts, conditions, and circumstances of other events will be reported in a manner and form prescribed by the Board. The NTSB allows the appropriate office director, under his or her delegated authority as described in § 800.25 of this chapter, to issue a “brief,” which includes the probable cause and relevant facts, conditions, and circumstances concerning the event. In particular circumstances, the Board in its discretion may choose to approve a brief. Such briefs do not include recommendations.

    (b) NTSB studies and reports. (1) The NTSB may issue reports describing investigations of more than one event that share commonalities. Such reports are similar to event investigation reports, as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Such reports often include safety recommendations and/or safety alerts, which the Board adopts.

    (2) Safety studies and reports. The NTSB issues safety studies and reports, which usually examine safety concerns that require the investigation of a number of related events to determine the extent and severity of the safety issues. Such studies and reports often include safety recommendations and/or safety alerts, which the Board adopts.

    (c) Safety recommendations. The Board may adopt and issue safety recommendations, either as part of a Board report or as a stand-alone Board product.

    § 845.31 Public docket.

    (a) Investigations. (1) As described in § 801.3 of this chapter, the public docket shall include factual information concerning the event. Proposed findings submitted pursuant to §§ 831.14 or 845.13 and petitions for reconsideration and modification submitted pursuant to § 845.32, comments thereon by other parties, and the Board's rulings on proposed findings and petitions shall also be placed in the public docket.

    (2) The NTSB shall establish the public docket following the event, and material shall be added thereto as it becomes available. Where an investigative hearing is held, the exhibits will be introduced into the record at the hearing and will be included in the public docket.

    (b) Other Board reports and documents. The NTSB may elect to open and place materials in a public docket concerning a safety study or report, special investigation report, or other agency product. The NTSB will establish the public docket following its issuance of the study or report.

    (c) Availability. The public docket shall be made available to any person for review, as described in § 801.30 of this chapter. Records within the public docket are available at www.ntsb.gov.

    § 845.32 Petitions for reconsideration or modification of report.

    (a) Requirements. (1) The Board will only consider petitions for reconsideration or modification of findings and determination of probable cause from a party or other person having a direct interest in an investigation.

    (2) Petitions must be in writing and addressed to the NTSB Chairman. Please send your petition via email to [email protected] In the alternative, you may send your petition via postal mail to: NTSB Headquarters at 490 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594.

    (3) Petitions must be based on the discovery of new evidence or on a showing that the Board's findings are erroneous.

    (i) Petitions based on the discovery of new matter shall: identify the new matter; contain affidavits of prospective witnesses, authenticated documents, or both, or an explanation of why such substantiation is unavailable; and state why the new matter was not available prior to Board's adoption of its findings. (ii) Petitions based on a claim of erroneous findings shall set forth in detail the grounds upon which the claim is based.

    (b) Acceptance of petitions. The Board will not consider petitions that are repetitious of proposed findings submitted pursuant to § 845.13, or of positions previously advanced.

    (c) Proof of service. (1) When a petition for reconsideration or modification is filed with the Board, copies of the petition and any supporting documentation shall be served on all other parties to the investigation or investigative hearing and proof of service shall be attached to the petition. (2) Any party served with a copy of the petition may file comments no later than 90 days after service of the petition.

    (d) Oral presentation. Oral presentation normally will not form a part of proceedings under this section. However, oral presentation may be permitted where a party or interested person specifically shows the written petition for reconsideration or modification is an insufficient means by which to present the party's or person's position.

    § 845.33 Investigation to remain open.

    The Board never officially closes, but provides for the submission of new and pertinent evidence by any interested person. If the Board finds such evidence is relevant and probative, the evidence shall be made a part of the public docket and, where appropriate, the Board will provide parties an opportunity to examine such evidence and to comment thereon.

    Christopher A. Hart, Acting Chairman.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06187 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7533-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2014-0065; 4500030114] RIN 1018-BA03 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Black Pinesnake; Correction AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on March 11, 2015, to designate critical habitat for the black pinesnake (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In that proposed rule, we provided the wrong address for the submission of hard-copy comments. With this document, we correct our error.

    DATES:

    We will accept comments on the March 11, 2015 (80 FR 12846), proposed rule that are received or postmarked on or before May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the March 11, 2015, proposed rule by one of the following methods:

    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2014-0065, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!”

    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2014-0065; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

    We request that you send comments only by one of the methods described above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (for more information, see the Information Requested section of the March 11, 2015, proposed rule at 80 FR 12846).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Field Office, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson, MS 39213; telephone: 601-321-1122; facsimile: 601-965-4340. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In a proposed rule that published in the Federal Register on March 11, 2015, at 80 FR 12846, the ADDRESSES section provided the wrong address for the submission of hard-copy comments. The corrected ADDRESSES section appears above.

    Dated: March 16, 2015. Tina A. Campbell, Chief, Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06302 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 217 RIN 0648-BE53 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Seismic Surveys in Cook Inlet, Alaska AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On February 23, 2015, the NMFS published its proposed rulemaking to govern the take of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting a marine geophysical (seismic) survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska from March 1, 2015 to February 29, 2020. The Federal Register document indicated that written comments are due by March 25, 2015. However, in response to a request to extend the public comment period, NMFS has decided to extend the public comment period by an additional 15 calendar days.

    DATES:

    NMFS has extended the public comment period published on February 23, 2015 (80 FR 9509) to April 9, 2015. NMFS must receive written comments and information on or before April 9, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Address comments on the application to Jolie Harrison, Supervisor, Incidental Take Program, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing email comments is [email protected] Please include 0648-BE53 in the subject line. Comments sent via email to [email protected], including all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. NMFS is not responsible for email comments sent to addresses other than the one provided here.

    Instructions: All submitted comments are a part of the public record and NMFS will post them to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sara Young, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS (301) 427-8484.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

    On February 23, 2015, NMFS published a Federal Register notice (80 FR 9509, February 23, 2015) announcing proposed issuance of regulations to Apache Alaska Corporation (Apache) to take marine mammals, by harassment incidental to conducting a seismic survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska March 1, 2015 through February 29, 2020. The 30-day public comment period for the Federal Register notice (80 FR 9509, February 23, 2015) ends on March 25, 2015.

    This is the first time that NMFS has proposed to issue regulations for harassment incidental to a seismic survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska.

    On March 2, 2015, the Natural Resource Defense Council requested an extension of the public comment period to aid in their review of the proposed rulemaking. NMFS has considered the request and will extend the comment period to April 9, 2015. This extension provides a total of 45 days for public input and continuing Federal agency reviews to inform NMFS' final decision to issue or deny the regulations.

    NMFS refers the reader to the February 23, 2015, notice of proposed regulations (80 FR 9509, February 23, 2015) for background information concerning the proposed rulemaking as this notice does not repeat the information here. For additional information about Apache's request and the environmental analyses, please visit the Web site at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications.

    Dated: March 11, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06342 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 229 [Docket No. 150122067-5229-01] RIN 0648-BE83 Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS proposes to amend the regulations implementing the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan. This action proposes to change the minimum number of traps per trawl to allow fishing with a single trap in certain Massachusetts and Rhode Island state waters; and proposes to modify the requirement to use one endline on trawls within certain areas in Massachusetts state waters. NMFS also proposes a 1/4 mile buffer in waters surrounding certain islands in Maine to allow fishing with a single trap. In addition, NMFS proposes additional gear marking requirements for those waters allowing single traps as well as two new high use areas for humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) and North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis).

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0127, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal

    1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0127,

    2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields,

    3. Enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Kim Damon-Randall, Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS Greater Atlantic Region, 55 Great Republic Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930, Attn: Large Whale Proposed Rule.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kate Swails, NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 978-282-8481, [email protected]; or, Kristy Long, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, 206-526-4792, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Electronic Access

    Several of the background documents for the Plan and the take reduction planning process can be downloaded from the Plan Web site at http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/whaletrp/index.html. The complete text of the regulations implementing the Plan can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 229.32 or downloaded from the Web site, along with a guide to the regulations. The draft Environmental Assessment for this action is also available online.

    Background

    NMFS published an amendment to the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (Plan) on June 27, 2014 (79 FR 36586) to address large whale entanglement risks associated with vertical line (or buoy lines) from commercial trap/pot fisheries. This amendment included gear modifications, gear setting requirements, a seasonal closure (Massachusetts Restricted Area) and gear marking for both the trap/pot and the gillnet fisheries.

    In consultation with the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (Team), we developed protocols for considering modifications or exemptions to the regulations implementing the Plan. Following these protocols, on August 18, 2014, the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) submitted a proposal to modify the Massachusetts Bay Restricted Area and exempted several areas from the gear setting requirements to address safety and economic concerns raised by their industry members.

    The DMF proposal adequately addressed the protocols and criteria established by the Team for considering modifications or exemptions to the Plan's regulations enabling us to consult with the Team. We decided to address the modifications to the Massachusetts Restricted Area and the exemption of the minimum number of traps per trawl requirements separately, beginning with the Massachusetts Restricted Area. After discussions with the Team, NMFS published an amendment to the Plan on December 12, 2014 (79 FR 73848) changing the timing and size of the Massachusetts Restricted Area.

    Along with the DMF proposal we also received proposals from other state partners requesting certain waters be exempt from the minimum number of traps per trawl requirements due to safety concerns. The conservation members of the Team also submitted a proposal in an effort to offset this potential increase in vertical lines should NMFS approve the proposed state exemptions. NMFS convened the team in January 2015 to discuss these proposals. At the conclusion of the January meeting, the Team, by near consensus, recommended that we amend the Plan as proposed by the states. The Team also recommended that the current gear marking scheme be updated to include unique marks for those fishing singles in the proposed exempted areas and a unique mark for both gillnets and trap/pots fished in Jeffreys Ledge and Jordan Basin. This recommendation forms the basis for the proposed alternative described below.

    Changes Proposed to the Plan for Trap/Pot Gear

    This action proposes to exempt Rhode Island state waters and portions of Massachusetts state waters from the minimum number of traps per trawl requirement and allow singles to be fished in certain state waters (see Figures 1 and 2, respectively). This exemption is based on safety and financial concerns raised by the industry. In addition, in Rhode Island state waters and portions of Massachusetts state waters (particularly in Southern Massachusetts waters) the co-occurrence of fishing effort and whale distribution is minimal. According to DMF along the Outer Cape there are dynamic tides and featureless substrate that dictate the use of single traps in this area. Massachusetts also has a student lobster permit that allows for permit holders to fish alone and with small boats. Single traps are used in this fishery and other inshore waters as a matter of safety.

    In addition, those fishing in all Massachusetts state waters would be required to have one endline for trawls less than and equal to three traps. The current requirement of one endline for trawls less than or equal to five traps remains in place in all other management areas. Larger trawls (i.e., > 5 traps/pots) will not be required to have only one endline.

    An exemption from the minimum number of traps per trawl requirement is also proposed for a 1/4 mile buffer in waters surrounding the following islands in Maine—Matinicus Island Group (Metinic, Small Green, Large Green, Seal, and Wooden Ball) and Isle of Shoals Island Group (Duck, Appledore, Cedar, and Smuttynose).

    Boats within this 1/4 mile buffer would be allowed to continue fishing single traps rather than multiple trap trawls due to safety issues since these waters are generally less than 30 fathoms deep with rocky edges and boats fishing close to shore areas are usually small. A similar exemption for the inhabited islands of Monhegan, Matinicus, and Ragged Islands was established in the June 2014 rule. The proposed islands in this rule have the same bottom habitat as the previously exempt islands and many residents from many island communities fish around these islands. Similarly, the New Hampshire side of the Isle of Shoals group was also exempt from the minimum number of traps per trawl requirement in the June 2014 rule. Allowing the islands in the chain that fall on the Maine side of the border to have the same exemption would provide parity to fishermen using islands on both sides of the border. Maine Department of Marine Resources (ME DMR) estimates that the fishing effort within the proposed buffer areas is small (0.3% of total vertical lines in the Northeast), consists of around 20 fishermen and has peak use in the summer months. In addition, ME DMR is pursuing funding for aerial surveys that would determine the use of marine mammals in these coastal areas as well as document the gear density.

    Changes Proposed to the Plan for Gear Marking

    This action proposes to implement a gear marking scheme that builds off the current color combinations and the size and frequency of the current gear marking requirements. In an effort to learn if entanglements occur in these newly exempted areas, this action proposes to add a unique gear mark to those single vertical lines fished in the exempted areas of Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Matinicus Island Group, Maine. Also, this action proposes unique trap/pot and gillnet gear marking in two important high use areas for both humpback and right whales—Jeffreys Ledge (Figure 3) and Jordan Basin (Figure 4). The mark must equal 12-inches (30.5 cm) in length and buoy lines must be marked three times (top, middle, bottom) with the appropriate unique color combination for that area.

    NMFS proposes a phased-in implementation of the new gear marking. Industry would have 30 days from publication of the final rule to mark gear fished in the newly exempted areas and 90 days from publication of the final rule to mark gear in Jeffreys Ledge and Jordan Basin areas.

    Classification

    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule contains collection of information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), specifically, the marking of fishing gear. The collection of information requirement was approved by OMB under control number (0648-0364). Public comment is sought regarding whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance and function of the agency, including: The practical utility of the information; the accuracy of the burden estimate; the opportunities to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and the ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and by email to [email protected], or fax to (202) 395-7285.

    This revision to the collection of information requirement applies to a total of 399 vessels. The estimated number of vessels affected by the overall gear marking provisions in the Plan is 4,008. The estimated number of those vessels affected only by the proposed amendment is 399. Model vessel types were developed for gillnet fisheries, lobster trap/pot fisheries, and other trap/pot fisheries. Total burden hours for all affected vessels in the Plan are 35,571 hours over three years or 11,857 hours per year. Total cost burden for all affected vessels in the Plan is $24,758 over three years or $8,253 per year. The total cost burden for those vessels affected by the proposed amendment is $3,450 over three years or $1,150 per year. For more information, please see the PRA submission associated with this rulemaking.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number.

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NMFS prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for this proposed rule; a summary of the IRFA follows.

    A description of the reasons why this action is being considered, its objectives, and the legal basis for this proposed action can be found in the Summary section and earlier in the Supplementary Information section of this proposed rule, and are not repeated here. This proposed rule would not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other federal rules.

    The small entities affected by this proposed rule are commercial gillnet and trap/pot fishermen. The geographic range of the proposed rule is the Northeast Atlantic waters. By changing the minimum number of traps per trawl requirement to allow singles, in the lobster trap/pot fishery, there are potentially 182 vessels that would be affected. Additionally, in the other trap/pot fisheries, there are potentially 123 vessels that would be affected. All vessels are assumed to be small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Alternatives were evaluated using model vessels, each of which represents a group of vessels that share similar operating characteristics and would face similar requirements under a given regulatory alternative. Both an upper and lower bound of annual economic savings for lobster and other trap/pot were analyzed. A summary of analysis describing the potential range of savings resulting from allowing singles to be fished follows:

    1. NMFS considered a “no action” or status quo alternative (Alternative 1) that would result in no changes to the current measures under the Plan and, as such, would result in no additional economic effects on the fishing industry.

    2. Alternative 2 would modify the Plan by allowing the use of single traps in Rhode Island state waters, in most Massachusetts state waters, and some waters around Maine Islands. This change would constitute an exemption to the minimum two-trap-per-trawl requirement specified for these areas under the 2014 vertical line rulemaking. Those who until now have fished singles in these areas would avoid the costs associated with converting their gear from singles to doubles, and would also avoid other possible costs, such as a loss in revenue due to a reduction in catch. The proposed action also revises gear marking requirements that would apply to vessels fishing in waters that would be exempt from trawling requirements, as well as to vessels fishing in two additional regions (Jordan Basin and Jeffreys Ledge). The changes would require the use of colors that would differentiate gear set in these areas from gear fished in other waters. NMFS has determined, however, that the marking requirements would introduce minimal additional burden for the affected vessels; thus, a substantial increase in compliance costs is unlikely. The proposed rule does not include any other reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance requirements.

    Overall, the economic impacts of the preferred alternative results in a vessel cost savings that would equal or range from $163,200 to $345,700 for lobster trap/pot vessels and $257,000 to $512,500 for other trap/pot vessels when compared to the no action alternative, resulting in a largely positive impact.

    NMFS has determined that this action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the approved coastal management programs of Massachusetts. This determination was submitted for review by the responsible state agency under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act.

    This proposed rule contains policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. Accordingly, the Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs will provide notice of the proposed action to the appropriate official(s) of affected state, local, and/or tribal governments.

    BILLING CODE 3510-22-P EP19MR15.008 EP19MR15.009 EP19MR15.010 EP19MR15.011 BILLING CODE 3510-22-C List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 229

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Fisheries, Marine mammals, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 12, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 229 is proposed to be amended to read as follows:

    PART 229—AUTHORIZATION FOR COMMERCIAL FISHERIES UNDER THE MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1972 1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 229 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; § 229.32(f) also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

    2. In § 229.32, paragraphs (a)(3)(iii), and (a)(6), and (b) are revised to read as follows:
    § 229.32 Atlantic large whale take reduction plan regulations.

    (a) * * *

    (3) Exempted waters. (i) The regulations in this section do not apply to waters landward of the 72 COLREGS demarcation lines (International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972), as depicted or noted on nautical charts published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Coast Charts 1:80,000 scale), and as described in 33 CFR part 80 with the exception of the COLREGS lines for Casco Bay (Maine), Portsmouth Harbor (New Hampshire), Gardiners Bay and Long Island Sound (New York), and the state of Massachusetts.

    (ii) Other exempted waters.

    Maine

    The regulations in this section do not apply to waters landward of a line connecting the following points (Quoddy Narrows/US-Canada border to Odiornes Pt., Portsmouth, New Hampshire):

    44°49.67′ N. lat., 66°57.77′ W. long. (R N “2”, Quoddy Narrows) 44°48.64′ N. lat., 66°56.43′ W. long. (G “1” Whistle, West Quoddy Head) 44°47.36′ N. lat., 66°59.25′ W. long. (R N “2”, Morton Ledge) 44°45.51′ N. lat., 67°02.87′ W. long. (R “28M” Whistle, Baileys Mistake) 44°37.70′ N. lat., 67°09.75′ W. long. (Obstruction, Southeast of Cutler) 44°27.77′ N. lat., 67°32.86′ W. long. (Freeman Rock, East of Great Wass Island) 44°25.74′ N. lat., 67°38.39′ W. long. (R “2SR” Bell, Seahorse Rock, West of Great Wass Island) 44°21.66′ N. lat., 67°51.78′ W. long. (R N “2”, Petit Manan Island) 44°19.08′ N. lat., 68°02.05′ W. long. (R “2S” Bell, Schoodic Island) 44°13.55′ N. lat., 68°10.71′ W. long. (R “8BI” Whistle, Baker Island) 44°08.36′ N. lat., 68°14.75′ W. long. (Southern Point, Great Duck Island) 43°59.36′ N. lat., 68°37.95′ W. long. (R “2” Bell, Roaring Bull Ledge, Isle Au Haut) 43°59.83′ N. lat., 68°50.06′ W. long. (R “2A” Bell, Old Horse Ledge) 43°56.72′ N. lat., 69°04.89′ W. long. (G “5TB” Bell, Two Bush Channel) 43°50.28′ N. lat., 69°18.86′ W. long. (R “2 OM” Whistle, Old Man Ledge) 43°48.96′ N. lat., 69°31.15′ W. long. (GR C “PL”, Pemaquid Ledge) 43°43.64′ N. lat., 69°37.58′ W. long. (R “2BR” Bell, Bantam Rock) 43°41.44′ N. lat., 69°45.27′ W. long. (R “20ML” Bell, Mile Ledge) 43°36.04′ N. lat., 70°03.98′ W. long. (RG N “BS”, Bulwark Shoal) 43°31.94′ N. lat., 70°08.68′ W. long. (G “1”, East Hue and Cry) 43°27.63′ N. lat., 70°17.48′ W. long. (RW “WI” Whistle, Wood Island) 43°20.23′ N. lat., 70°23.64′ W. long. (RW “CP” Whistle, Cape Porpoise) 43°04.06′ N. lat., 70°36.70′ W. long. (R N “2MR”, Murray Rock) 43°02.93′ N. lat., 70°41.47′ W. long. (R “2KR” Whistle, Kittery Point) 43°02.55′ N. lat., 70°43.33′ W. long. (Odiornes Pt., Portsmouth, New Hampshire) New Hampshire

    New Hampshire state waters are exempt from the minimum number of traps per trawl requirement in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section. Harbor waters landward of the following lines are exempt from all the regulations in this section.

    A line from 42°53.691′ N. lat., 70°48.516′ W. long. to 42°53.516′ N. lat., 70°48.748′ W. long. (Hampton Harbor) A line from 42°59.986′ N. lat., 70°44.654′ W. long. to 42°59.956′ N., 70°44.737′ W. long. (Rye Harbor) Rhode Island

    Rhode Island state waters are exempt from the minimum number of traps per trawl requirement in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section. Harbor waters landward of the following lines are exempt from all the regulations in this section.

    A line from 41°22.441′ N. lat., 71°30.781′ W. long. to 41°22.447′ N. lat., 71°30.893′ W. long. (Pt. Judith Pond Inlet) A line from 41°21.310′ N. lat., 71°38.300′ W. long. to 41°21.300′ N. lat., 71°38.330′ W. long. (Ninigret Pond Inlet) A line from 41°19.875′ N. lat., 71°43.061′ W. long. to 41°19.879′ N. lat., 71°43.115′ W. long. (Quonochontaug Pond Inlet) A line from 41°19.660′ N. lat., 71°45.750′ W. long. to 41°19.660′ N. lat., 71°45.780′ W. long. (Weekapaug Pond Inlet) New York

    The regulations in this section do not apply to waters landward of a line that follows the territorial sea baseline through Block Island Sound (Watch Hill Point, RI, to Montauk Point, NY).

    Massachusetts

    The regulations in this section do not apply to waters landward of the first bridge over any embayment, harbor, or inlet in Massachusetts. The following Massachusetts state waters are exempt from the minimum number of traps per trawl requirement in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section:

    Massachusetts state waters in LMA 1 and Outer Cape north and east of Cape Cod from 0-3 miles from shore and including a portion of waters east of the line connecting the following points:

    41.925° N, 70.147° W and 41.792° N, 70.319° W

    Massachusetts state waters in LMA 2 and Outer Cape south of 41.67°40′ N and west of 70.0°00′ W to the Rhode Island border

    South Carolina

    The regulations in this section do not apply to waters landward of a line connecting the following points from 32°34.717′ N. lat., 80°08.565′ W. long. to 32°34.686′ N. lat., 80°08.642′ W. long. (Captain Sams Inlet)

    (6) Island buffer. Those fishing in waters within 1/4 mile of the following Maine islands are exempt from the minimum number of traps per trawl requirement in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section: Monhegan Island, Matinicus Island Group (Metinic Island, Small Green Island, Large Green Island, Seal Island, Wooden Ball Island, Matinicus Island, Ragged Island) and Isle of Shoals Island Group (Duck Island, Appledore Island, Cedar Island, Smuttynose Island).

    (b) Gear marking requirements—(1) Specified areas. The following areas are specified for gear marking purposes: Northern Inshore State Trap/Pot Waters, Cape Cod Bay Restricted Area, Massachusetts Restricted Area, Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area, Northern Nearshore Trap/Pot Waters Area, Great South Channel Restricted Trap/Pot Area, Great South Channel Restricted Gillnet Area, Great South Channel Sliver Restricted Area, Southern Nearshore Trap/Pot Waters Area, Offshore Trap/Pot Waters Area, Other Northeast Gillnet Waters Area, Mid/South Atlantic Gillnet Waters Area, Other Southeast Gillnet Waters Area, Southeast U.S. Restricted Areas, and Southeast U.S. Monitoring Area.

    (i) Jordan Basin. The Jordan Basin Restricted Area is bounded by the following points:

    Point N. Lat. W. Long. JBRA1 43°15′ 68°50′ JBRA2 43°35′ 68°20′ JBRA3 43°25′ 68°05′ JBRA4 43°05′ 68°20′ JBRA5 43°05′ 68°35′

    (ii) Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area—The Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area is bounded by the following points:

    Point N. Lat. W. Long. JLRA1 43°15′ 70°25′ JLRA2 43°15′ 70°00′ JLRA3 42°50′ 70°00′ JLRA4 42°50′ 70°25′

    (2) Markings. All specified gear in specified areas must be marked with the color code shown in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The color of the color code must be permanently marked on or along the line or lines specified below under paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. Each color mark of the color codes must be clearly visible when the gear is hauled or removed from the water, including if the color of the rope is the same as or similar to the respective color code. The rope must be marked at least three times (top, middle, bottom) and each mark must total 12-inch (30.5 cm) in length. If the mark consists of two colors then each color mark may be 6-inch (15.25 cm) for a total mark of 12-inch (30.5 cm). In marking or affixing the color code, the line may be dyed, painted, or marked with thin colored whipping line, thin colored plastic, or heat-shrink tubing, or other material; or a thin line may be woven into or through the line; or the line may be marked as approved in writing by the Assistant Administrator. A brochure illustrating the techniques for marking gear is available from the Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Region upon request.

    (i) Buoy line markings. All buoy lines must be marked as stated above. Shark gillnet gear in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area S, Southeast U.S. Monitoring Area and Other Southeast Gillnet Waters, greater than 4 feet (1.22 m) long must be marked within 2 feet (0.6 m) of the top of the buoy line (closest to the surface), midway along the length of the buoy line, and within 2 feet (0.6 m) of the bottom of the buoy line.

    (ii) Net panel markings. Shark gillnet gear net panels in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area S, Southeast U.S. Monitoring Area and Other Southeast Gillnet Waters is required to be marked. The net panel must be marked along both the floatline and the leadline at least once every 100 yards (91.4 m).

    (iii) Surface buoy markings. Trap/pot and gillnet gear regulated under this section must mark all surface buoys to identify the vessel or fishery with one of the following: The owner's motorboat registration number, the owner's U.S. vessel documentation number, the federal commercial fishing permit number, or whatever positive identification marking is required by the vessel's home-port state. When marking of surface buoys is not already required by state or federal regulations, the letters and numbers used to mark the gear to identify the vessel or fishery must be at least 1 inch (2.5 cm) in height in block letters or arabic numbers in a color that contrasts with the background color of the buoy. A brochure illustrating the techniques for marking gear is available from the Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Region upon request.

    (3) Color code. Gear must be marked with the appropriate colors to designate gear types and areas as follows:

    Color Code Scheme Plan management area Color Trap/Pot Gear Massachusetts Restricted Area Red. Northern Nearshore Red. Northern Inshore State Red. Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area Red. Great South Channel Restricted Area overlapping with LMA 2 and/or Outer Cape Red. Exempt RI state waters (single traps) Red and Blue. Exempt MA state waters in LMA 1 (single traps) Red and White. Exempt MA state waters in LMA 2 (single traps) Red and Black. Exempt MA state waters in Outer Cape (singles) Red and Yellow. Isle of Shoals, ME (single traps) Red and Orange. Southern Nearshore Orange. Southeast Restricted Area North (State Waters) Blue and Orange. Southeast Restricted Area North (Federal Waters) Green and Orange. Offshore Black. Great South Channel Restricted Area overlapping with LMA 2/3 and/or LMA 3 Black. Jordan Basin Black and Purple (LMA 3); Red and and Purple (LMA 1). Jeffreys Ledge Red and Green. Gillnet Excluding Shark Gillnet Cape Cod Bay Restricted Area Green. Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area Green. Great South Channel Restricted Area Green. Great South Channel Restricted Sliver Area Green. Other Northeast Gillnet Waters Green. Jordan Basin Green and Yellow. Jeffreys Ledge Green and Black. Mid/South Atlantic Gillnet Waters Blue. Southeast US Restricted Area South Yellow. Other Southeast Gillnet Waters Yellow. Shark Gillnet (With Webbing of 5″ or Greater) Southeast US Restricted Area South Green and Blue. Southeast Monitoring Area Green and Blue. Other Southeast Waters Green and Blue.

    (c) * * *

    (2) Area specific gear requirements. Trap/pot gear must be set according to the requirements outlined below and in the table in paragraph(c)(2)(iii) of this section.

    (i) Single traps and multiple-trap trawls. All traps must be set according to the configuration outlined in the Table (c)(2)(iii) of this section. Trawls up to and including 5 or fewer traps must only have one buoy line unless specified otherwise in Table (c)(2)(iii) of this section.

    (ii) Buoy line weak links. All buoys, flotation devices and/or weights (except traps/pots, anchors, and leadline woven into the buoy line), such as surface buoys, high flyers, sub-surface buoys, toggles, window weights, etc., must be attached to the buoy line with a weak link placed as close to each individual buoy, flotation device and/or weight as operationally feasible and that meets the following specifications:

    (A) The breaking strength of the weak links must not exceed the breaking strength listed in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section for a specified management area.

    (B) The weak link must be chosen from the following list approved by NMFS: Swivels, plastic weak links, rope of appropriate breaking strength, hog rings, rope stapled to a buoy stick, or other materials or devices approved in writing by the Assistant Administrator. A brochure illustrating the techniques for making weak links is available from the Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Region upon request.

    (C) Weak links must break cleanly leaving behind the bitter end of the line. The bitter end of the line must be free of any knots when the weak link breaks. Splices are not considered to be knots for the purposes of this provision.

    (iii)—Table of Area Specific Gear Requirements Location Management area Minimum number
  • traps/trawl
  • Weak link strength
    ME State and Pocket Waters1 Northern Inshore State 2 (1 endline) ≤600 lbs. ME Zones A-G (3-6 miles) i Northern Nearshore 3 (1 endline) ≤600 lbs. ME Zones A-C (6-12 miles) 1 Northern Nearshore 5 (1 endline) ≤600 lbs. ME Zones D-G (6-12 miles) 1 Northern Nearshore 10 ≤600 lbs. ME Zones A-E (12+ miles) Northern Nearshore and Offshore 15 ≤600 lbs (≤1500 lbs in offshore, 2,000 lbs if red crab trap/pot). ME Zones F-G (12+ miles) Northern Nearshore and Offshore 15 (Mar 1-Oct 31) 20 (Nov 1-Feb 28/29) ≤600 lbs (≤1500 lbs in offshore, 2,000 lbs if red crab trap/pot). MA State Waters ii Northern Inshore State and Massachusetts Restricted Area No minimum number of traps per trawl. Trawls up to and including 3 or fewer traps must only have one buoy line ≤600 lbs. Other MA State Waters Northern Inshore State and Massachusetts Restricted Area 2 (1 endline) Trawls up to and including 3 or fewer traps must only have one buoy line ≤600 lbs. NH State Waters Northern Inshore State No minimum trap/trawl ≤600 lbs. LMA 1 (3-12 miles) Northern Nearshore and Massachusetts Restricted Area and Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area 10 ≤600 lbs. LMA 1 (12+ miles) Northern Nearshore 20 ≤600 lbs. LMA1/OC Overlap (0-3 miles) Northern Inshore State and Massachusetts Restricted Area No minimum number of traps per trawl ≤600 lbs. OC (0-3 miles) Northern Inshore State and Massachusetts Restricted Area No minimum number of traps per trawl ≤600 lbs. OC (3-12 miles) Northern Nearshore and Massachusetts Restricted Area 10 ≤600 lbs. OC (12+ miles) Northern Nearshore and Great South Channel Restricted Area 20 ≤600 lbs. RI State Waters Northern Inshore State No minimum number of traps per trawl. ≤600 lbs. LMA 2 (3-12 miles) Northern Nearshore 10 ≤600 lbs. LMA 2 (12 + miles) Northern Nearshore and Great South Channel Restricted Area 20 ≤600 lbs. LMA 2/3 Overlap (12+ miles) Offshore and Great South Channel Restricted Area 20 ≤1500 lbs (2,000 lbs if red crab trap/pot). LMA 3 (12+ miles) Offshore waters North of 40° and Great South Channel Restricted Area 20 ≤1500 lbs (2,000 lbs if red crab trap/pot). LMA 4,5,6 Southern Nearshore ≤600 lbs. FL State Waters Southeast US Restricted Area North iii 1 ≤200 lbs. GA State Waters Southeast US Restricted Area North 3 1 ≤600 lbs. SC State Waters Southeast US Restricted Area North 3 1 ≤600 lbs. Federal Waters off FL, GA, SC Southeast US Restricted Area North 3 1 ≤600 lbs. 1 The pocket waters and 6-mile line as defined in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)-(a)(2)(iii) of this section. 2 MA State waters as defined in paragraphs (a)(3)(iii) of this section. 3 See § 229.32 (f)(1) for description of area.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06272 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 53 Thursday, March 19, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request March 12, 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 20, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725-17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

    Title: Importation of Longan from Taiwan.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0351.

    Summary of Collection: Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to carry out operations or measures to detect, eradicate, suppress, control, prevent, or retard the spread of plant pests new to the United States or not known to be widely distributed throughout the United States. The fruits and vegetables regulations allow the importation of commercial shipments of fresh longan with stems from Taiwan into the United States. As a condition of entry, the longan will be subject to cold treatment and special port-of-arrival inspection procedures for certain quarantine pests.

    Need and use of the Information: APHIS will use the following information collection activities to allow the import of commercial shipment of fresh longan with stems from Taiwan into the United States: Phytosanitary Certificate, Inspection by NPPOs in Taiwan and Stamping of Boxes. Failing to collect this information would cripple APHIS ability to ensure that longan from Taiwan are not carrying plant pests.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profits; Federal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 2.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 22.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06208 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License AGENCY:

    Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to RENEWABLE NUTRIENTS, LLC. of PINEHURST, NORTH CAROLINA, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 13/164,363, “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REDUCING AMMONIA EMISSIONS FROM LIQUID EFFLUENTS AND FOR RECOVERING THE AMMONIA,” filed on JUNE 20, 2011.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mojdeh Bahar of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as RENEWABLE NUTRIENTS, LLC. of PINEHURST, NORTH CAROLINA has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

    Mojdeh Bahar, Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06323 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License AGENCY:

    Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to RENEWABLE NUTRIENTS, LLC. of PINEHURST, NORTH CAROLINA, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent No. 8,574,885, “ANAMMOX BACTERIUM ISOLATE,” issued on NOVEMBER 5, 2013.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mojdeh Bahar of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as RENEWABLE NUTRIENTS, LLC. of PINEHURST, NORTH CAROLINA has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

    Mojdeh Bahar, Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06318 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Agricultural Statistics Service Notice of Intent To Reinstate an Information Collection AGENCY:

    National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to seek reinstatement of an information collection, the Census of Agriculture Content Test. Response to this survey will be voluntary.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by May 18, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0243, by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected]. Include docket number above in the subject line of the message.

    eFax: (855) 838-6382

    Mail: Mail any paper, disk, or CD- ROM submissions to: David Hancock, NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Hand deliver to: David Hancock, NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    R. Renee Picanso, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-2707. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS-OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 690-2388 or at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Census of Agriculture Content Test.

    OMB Control Number: 0535-0243.

    Type of Request: Intent to Seek Reinstatement of an Information Collection.

    Abstract: The Census of Agriculture, conducted every five years, is the primary source of statistics concerning the Nation's agricultural industry and provides the basis for the Nation's comparable and robust agricultural data. Results of the 2012 Census of Agriculture are available on the Web at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/. This Information Collection activity will reinstate the Census of Agriculture Content Test. The purpose of this Content Test is to evaluate proposed changes to the survey methodology and content to reduce respondent burden and maintain the relevance of quality of statistics produced using the Census of Agriculture: Questionnaire format and design, new questions, changes to question wording and location, overall respondent burden, ease of completion, and processing methodology (such as editing and data summary). Results of this test will be studied in preparation for the 2017 Census of Agriculture. Development of the test questionnaire version will come from evaluation of the 2012 Census of Agriculture, testing panels, and cognitive interviews. NASS will also meet with other USDA and Federal agencies and selected State Departments of Agriculture to gather information on data uses and, in some cases, justifications for county-level data. The test will be nation-wide, excluding Alaska and Hawaii, and will be conducted in three phases. For Phase One, a stratified random sample of approximately 50,000 farm and ranch operators will be mailed questionnaires; stratification will be used to ensure sufficient coverage of various sizes, locations and types of agricultural operations. The sample will be divided into control and treatment groups to test alternative versions of the questionnaires. Non-respondents will receive follow-up contact by first mail, then telephone.

    Phase Two will consist of up to 400 randomly selected agricultural operations that will be asked to participate in cognitive interviews. The sample will consist of some agricultural operations that completed the questionnaire in Phase One, as well as some additional operations selected to ensure sufficient size of comparison groups. The cognitive interviews conducted with Phase One respondents will be used to improve the overall 2017 Census of Agriculture questionnaire by allowing NASS to follow-up with respondents to better understand unusual responses and to ascertain question comprehension. The remainder of the cognitive interview sample will be randomly selected from operations to meet size and type criteria to ensure sufficient cases for quantitative comparisons. The cognitive interviews of this group will test further 2017 Census of Agriculture questionnaire variations, including the Internet version.

    For Phase Three a stratified random sample of approximately 15,000 will be mailed letters asking them to go to a supplied Internet address to complete the survey. Stratification will be used to ensure sufficient coverage of various sizes and types of agricultural operations. The sample will be divided into control and treatment groups to test alternative versions of the on-line questionnaires and methods to increase on-line response. Non-respondents will receive follow-up contact by mail.

    Response to all phases of the Census of Agriculture Content Test are voluntary.

    Authority: Although the Census of Agriculture is required by law (“Census of Agriculture Act of 1997,” Public Law 105-113, 7 U.S.C. 2204(g) as amended), this Content Test is voluntary. These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985 as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) and Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.

    NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),” Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 115, June 15, 2007, p. 33362.

    Estimate of Burden: Reporting burden for Phase One, (mailout survey) of this collection of information is estimated to average 50 minutes per completed response and two (2) minutes per refusal. This was determined by our experience from past Censuses of Agriculture and by our survey methodologists, based on the length and difficulty of similar surveys. Burden is based on an estimated minimum response rate of 58%. This anticipated response rate is based on similar types of voluntary mail surveys and through the use of a mail questionnaire and (limited) telephone follow-up to non-respondents. After removing ineligible cases (those operations out of business or similar), we anticipate a 50% response rate.

    Reporting burden for Phase Two, (cognitive interviews) of this collection of information is estimated to average 120 minutes per completed response and five (5) minutes per refusal. This was determined by our survey methodologists who compared the questionnaire length and difficulty with previous cognitive pretests NASS has conducted.

    Reporting burden for Phase Three, (internet test) of this collection of information is estimated to average 40 minutes per completed response and two (2) minutes per refusal. This was determined by our experience from past Censuses of Agriculture and by our survey methodologists, who compared the questionnaire length and difficulty with similar surveys. Since Phase Three is Internet only, the average time to complete the questionnaire is less than for Phase One (paper questionnaire and phone follow-up responses only) since the Internet version is faster due to automated routing. Burden is based on an estimated minimum response rate of 53%, which is similar to response rates observed for voluntary Internet based surveys of a similar nature.

    Respondents: Potential farm and ranch operators.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 65,400 farmers and/or ranchers.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 42,000 hours (This is based on the expected response rates explained above.)

    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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, technological or other forms of information technology collection methods.

    All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.

    Signed at Washington, DC, February 18, 2015. R. Renee Picanso, Associate Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06324 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License AGENCY:

    Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to RENEWABLE NUTRIENTS, LLC. of PINEHURST, NORTH CAROLINA, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent No. 8,906,332, “GASEOUS AMMONIA REMOVAL SYSTEM,” issued on DECEMBER 9, 2014 and U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 14/528,614, “GASEOUS AMMONIA REMOVAL SYSTEM,” filed on OCTOBER 30, 2014.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mojdeh Bahar of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Government's patent rights in these inventions are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license these inventions as RENEWABLE NUTRIENTS, LLC. of PINEHURST, NORTH CAROLINA has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

    Mojdeh Bahar, Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06312 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD832 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Advisory Panel will hold a public meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, April 13, 2015, from 1:30 p.m. until 4 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via Internet Webinar. Detailed connection details are available at http://www.mafmc.org. To join the Webinar, follow this link and enter the online meeting room: http://mafmc.adobeconnect.com/april2015scoq/.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to develop a fishery performance report by the Council's Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Advisory Panel. The intent of this report is to facilitate structured input from the Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Advisory Panel members to the Council and its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC).

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups 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 M. Jan Saunders at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: March 16, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06317 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration [Docket No. 150312253-5253-01] RIN 0660-XC018 Stakeholder Engagement on Cybersecurity in the Digital Ecosystem AGENCY:

    National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Request for Public Comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce Internet Policy Task Force (IPTF) is requesting comment to identify substantive cybersecurity issues that affect the digital ecosystem and digital economic growth where broad consensus, coordinated action, and the development of best practices could substantially improve security for organizations and consumers. The IPTF invites public comment on these issues from all stakeholders with an interest in cybersecurity, including the commercial, academic and civil society sectors, and from relevant federal, state, local, and tribal entities.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted by email to [email protected] Comments submitted by email should be machine-searchable and should not be copy-protected. Written comments also may be submitted by mail to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4725, Attn: Cybersecurity RFC 2015, Washington, DC 20230. Responders should include the name of the person or organization filing the comment, as well as a page number, on each page of their submissions. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/internet-policy-task-force without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NTIA will accept anonymous comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Allan Friedman, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4725, Washington, DC 20230; Telephone: (202) 482-4281; Email: [email protected] Please direct media inquiries to NTIA's Office of Public Affairs: (202) 482-7002.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The Department of Commerce IPTF published a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in 2010, focusing on the relationship between cybersecurity and the pace of innovation in the information economy.1 Based on the comments received, the Department of Commerce published a Green Paper, Cybersecurity, Innovation, and the Internet Economy, in 2011.2 The Green Paper focused on the sector of the economy that creates or uses the Internet or networking services and falls outside the classification of critical infrastructure, as defined by existing law and Administration policy. In that document, the IPTF focused on two themes. First, there are real, evolving threats in cyberspace that not only put businesses and their online operations at risk, but threaten to undermine the trust on which much of the digital economy depends. Second, the pace of innovation in the highly dynamic digital ecosystem makes traditional regulation and compliance difficult and inefficient.

    1 U.S. Department of Commerce, Internet Policy Task Force, Notice of Inquiry, Cybersecurity, Innovation, and the Internet Economy, Dkt. No. 100721305-0305-01, 75 FR 44216 (July 28, 2010), available at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/federal-register-notices/2010/cybersecurity-innovation-and-internet-economy. Responses to the Notice of Inquiry are available at: http://www.nist.gov/itl/cybercomments.cfm.

    2 U.S. Department of Commerce, Internet Policy Task Force, Cybersecurity, Innovation, and the Internet Economy (June 2011) (“Green Paper”), available at: http://www.nist.gov/itl/upload/Cybersecurity_Green-Paper_FinalVersion.pdf.

    Stakeholder response to the Green Paper provided a roadmap for the IPTF to continue its cybersecurity policy work. In September 2011, the IPTF, in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, issued a NOI on possible approaches to creating a voluntary industry code of conduct to address the detection, notification, and mitigation of botnets, which led to an industry-led working group.3 In February 2013, the White House released Executive Order 13636 which called upon the Department of Commerce to work with industry to develop a framework for use by U.S. critical infrastructure to improve cybersecurity practices, and to undertake a study on incentives to encourage private sector adoption of cybersecurity protections.4

    3 U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Notice of Inquiry, Models To Advance Voluntary Corporate Notification to Consumers Regarding the Illicit Use of Computer Equipment by Botnets and Related Malware, Dkt. No. 110829543-1541-01, 76 FR 58466 (September 21, 2011), available at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/botnet_rfi.pdf.

    4 Exec. Order No. 14636, Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, 78 FR 11739 (February 12, 2013), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/19/2013-03915/improving-critical-infrastructure-cybersecurity.

    The Cybersecurity Framework was developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the Department of Commerce, with the aid of broad stakeholder participation.5 The Cybersecurity Framework offers organizations a guide for understanding and implementing appropriate cybersecurity protections, and has been applied by a range of organizations, including a number that fall “outside the orbit of critical infrastructure or key resources,” the focus of the Green Paper effort.6 Following launch of the Cybersecurity Framework, NIST published a Request for Information (RFI) in August 2014 asking for stakeholder feedback on Cybersecurity Framework awareness, use, and next steps.7 In response to questions regarding next steps that could complement the Cybersecurity Framework process, stakeholders again identified the IPTF as a vehicle to facilitate further collaborative cybersecurity work, building on the models of multistakeholder participation initially discussed in the Green Paper.8

    5 National Institute of Standards and Technology, Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity Version 1.0, (February 12, 2014), available at: http://www.nist.gov/cyberframework/upload/cybersecurity-framework-021214.pdf.

    6 Green Paper at ii.

    7 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Notice of Inquiry, Experience With the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, Dkt. No. 140721609-4609-01, 79 FR 50891 (August 26, 2014), available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/08/26/2014-20315/experience-with-the-framework-for-improving-critical-infrastructure-cybersecurity.

    8See, e.g., comments from the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), US Telecom Association, and Microsoft on the Cybersecurity Framework RFI (August 2014), available at: http://csrc.nist.gov/cyberframework/rfi_comments_10_2014.html.

    Accordingly, the IPTF proposes to facilitate one or more multistakeholder processes around key cybersecurity issues facing the digital ecosystem and economy. Multistakeholder processes, built on the principles of openness, transparency, and consensus, can generate collective guidance and foundations for coordinated voluntary action. Potential outcomes would vary by the issue discussed, but could include voluntary policy guidelines, procedures, or best practices. In the digital ecosystem, the rapid pace of innovation often outstrips the ability of regulators to effectively administer key policy questions. Open, voluntary, and consensus-driven processes can work to safeguard the interests of all stakeholders while still allowing the digital economy to thrive.

    The focus of these processes is to address discrete security challenges in the digital ecosystem where collaborative voluntary action between diverse actors can substantially improve security for everyone. Each process will engage a wide range of participants to ensure that the outcomes reflect the consensus of the relevant community, and are fair, voluntary, and stakeholder-driven.

    These processes will be designed to complement, rather than duplicate existing initiatives, both inside and outside the government. They will be coordinated by the IPTF, under the leadership of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). Under its statutory authority, NTIA undertakes Internet policy initiatives that serve to protect, promote and reinforce an open, innovative Internet ecosystem and digital economy, and is the executive branch lead for promoting the multistakeholder approach to Internet policymaking.9 In partnership with its IPTF partners, NTIA has addressed other key challenges in Internet policy through multistakeholder processes, including an ongoing set of initiatives around privacy and digital copyright.10 These proposed cybersecurity processes will be coordinated with standards and technology work underway within the Department of Commerce focused on cybersecurity, including the Cybersecurity Framework, the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence, and the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace.11 Through the comprehensive scope of all these efforts, the Department of Commerce seeks to foster innovation and to better secure the ecosystem to ensure that businesses, organizations and individuals can expand their trust, investment and engagement in the digital economy, while also reinforcing the voluntary, multistakeholder approach to Internet policymaking.

    9See 47 U.S.C. 901(c) (describing NTIA's policy roles, including “[p]romoting the benefits of technological development in the United States for all users of telecommunications and information facilities;” “[f]ostering national safety and security, economic prosperity, and the delivery of critical social services through telecommunications;” and “[f]acilitating and contributing to the full development of competition, efficiency, and the free flow of commerce in domestic and international telecommunications.”)

    10 More information about the IPTF's work on privacy and copyright initiatives, including multiple Requests for Comment, are available at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/internet-policy-task-force.

    11 More information about the Cybersecurity Framework is available at: http://www.nist.gov/cyberframework; the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence at: http://nccoe.nist.gov; and the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace at: http://www.nist.gov/nstic.

    Request for Comment: IPTF plans to facilitate a series of discussions around key cybersecurity challenges that may be addressed through a better shared understanding of the nature of the problem, and where multistakeholder discussion can be a catalyst for self-coordination of cybersecurity activities. Outcomes would depend on the issues discussed, but may involve combinations of principles, practices, and the voluntary application of policies and existing standards. Initially, IPTF seeks to conduct a cybersecurity multistakeholder process focused on a definable area where consumers and organizations will achieve the greatest benefit and consensus in a reasonable timeframe. While IPTF will avoid duplicating existing work, areas where stakeholders have identified the problem or begun to seek consensus around specific practices could provide a useful starting point.

    To identify potential cybersecurity topics that would benefit from a multistakeholder process, IPTF seeks comment from stakeholders on the following questions:

    1. What security challenges could be best addressed by bringing together the relevant participants in an open, neutral forum to explore coordinated, voluntary action through principles, practices, and guidelines? For each issue, also provide comment on:

    i. Why this topic is a good fit for a multistakeholder process, and whether stakeholders might reasonably be expected to come to some consensus;

    ii. Why such a process would benefit the digital ecosystem as a whole;

    iii. How long a facilitated, participant-led process on this topic should take to come to consensus;

    iv. What form an actionable outcome might take; and

    v. What pre-existing organizations and work already exist on the topic.

    2. Please comment on which of the following topics could result in actionable, collective progress by stakeholders in a multistakeholder setting. For each issue, also provide comment on:

    i. Why or why not this topic is a good fit for a multistakeholder process, and whether stakeholders might reasonably be expected to come to some consensus;

    ii. Why such a process would benefit the digital ecosystem as a whole;

    iii. How long a facilitated, participant-led process on this topic should take to come to consensus;

    iv. What form an actionable outcome might take; and

    v. What pre-existing organizations and work already exist on the topic.

    Network and Infrastructure Security

    (a) Botnet Mitigation. Disrupting botnets requires coordinated action and transparency between ISPs, vendors, consumers, and the public sector, such as previous efforts of the voluntary public-private partnership between the U.S. Office of the Cybersecurity Coordinator and the U.S. Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security related to ISP codes of conduct.12 What additional collective steps can be taken to support efforts to create awareness and manage the effects of botnets?

    12 U.S. Department of Commerce, Press Release, White House Announces Public-Private Partnership Initiatives to Combat Botnets (May 30, 2012), available at: http://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2012/05/30/white-house-announces-public-private-partnership-initiatives-combat-b.

    (b) Trust and Security in Core Internet Infrastructure: Naming, Routing, and Public Key Infrastructure. Key aspects of the Internet's core infrastructure were designed and deployed without explicit security mechanisms (e.g., the Domain Name System (DNS) and Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)) and new threats have been discovered in the Internet's Public-Key Infrastructure (i.e., PKIX). Technical solutions have been developed for many of these issues (e.g., DNSSEC, BGPSec and RPKI, DANE and certificate transparency) but uptake has been slow. What collective action can be taken to promote the voluntary adoption and diffusion of existing technical solutions to make the infrastructure more trustworthy?

    (c) Domain Name System (DNS), Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), and Transport Layer Security (TLS) Certificates. Key aspects of the Internet infrastructure have long been known to be vulnerable. While technical solutions exist for security vulnerabilities in routing, the domain name system and TLS certificates, uptake has been slow or is just beginning. What collective action can be taken to promote the voluntary adoption and diffusion of technical solutions, such as DNS Security (DNSSEC), to make the infrastructure more trustworthy?

    (d) Open Source Assurance. Many organizations depend on open source projects for a wide range of purposes across the digital economy. How can stakeholders better support improving the security of open source projects, and the distribution of patches?

    (e) Malware Mitigation. Disrupting and mitigating malware and malware networks can sometimes adversely impact consumers and stakeholders who may be inadvertently caught-up in the incident. How can existing models of mitigation and disruption better incorporate the needs and concerns of all relevant stakeholders?

    Web Security and Consumer Trust

    (f) Web Security. Many consumers assume that their connections with Web sites are secure, and that the Web sites themselves are secure, when there is little guarantee that safeguards are in place. What actions can improve web security and trust for consumers, including transport layer (Transport Layer Security, or TLS, often referred to as Secure Sockets Layer, or SSL) and web application security, potentially building on the success of existing stakeholder initiatives? 13

    13See, e.g., Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP), Top 10 List (“represent[ing] a broad consensus about the most critical web application security flaws”), available at: https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Top_Ten_Project.

    (g) Malvertising. Several popular Web sites have inadvertently spread malware through “malvertising,” when malicious code is served from legitimate advertising networks. How can diverse stakeholders work together to limit this risk?

    (h) Trusted Downloads. Internet users often download content and applications online without clear assurance of the security of the site. Are there best practices and existing standards that providers of online applications and downloadable tools can adopt to ensure consumer protection without impacting innovation or business models?

    (i) Cybersecurity and the Internet of Things. As the Internet of Things matures and more systems integrate information technologies (IT) and operational technologies (OT), cybersecurity is enmeshed in a broader risk context that includes safety, reliability, and resilience.14 How can we foster the emergence of voluntary policy frameworks, informed by market dynamics, that enable Internet of Things innovation while addressing the full spectrum of risks associated with cyber-physical systems?

    14See, e.g., NIST Cyber-Physical Systems Homepage, available at: http://www.nist.gov/cps; see also, FTC Staff, Internet of Things: Privacy & Security in a Connected World (January 2015), available at: http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/federal-trade-commission-staff-report-november-2013-workshop-entitled-internet-things-privacy/150127iotrpt.pdf.

    (j) Privacy. As noted in the Cybersecurity Framework, privacy and civil liberties implications may arise when personal information is used, collected, processed, maintained, or disclosed in connection with an organization's cybersecurity activities. How can risks to privacy or civil liberties arising from the application of cybersecurity measures or best practices be addressed in this process(es)?

    Business Processes and Enabling Markets

    (k) Managed Security Services: Requirements and Adoption. Managed security services (MSS) allow many firms, particularly small- and medium-sized businesses, to secure themselves without acquiring expensive in-house expertise, yet there are obstacles preventing seamless market cooperation and accountability between clients and vendors. How can a common understanding of security needs by stakeholders enable faster and more efficient adoption to improve security without sacrificing accountability?

    (l) Vulnerability Disclosure. The security of the digital economy depends on a productive relationship between security vendors and researchers of all types who discover vulnerabilities in existing technology and systems, and the providers, owners, and operators of those systems. How can stakeholders build on existing work in this space to responsibly manage the vulnerability disclosure process without putting consumers at risk in the short run? 15

    15See, e.g., Vulnerability Disclosure Overview, ISO Standard 29147 (2014), available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=45170.

    (m) Security Investment and Metrics. Market solutions for security require good information. What types of robust, practical, and actionable metrics can be used within organizations to understand security investment, and by consumers and clients to understand security practices and promote market demand for security?

    This list is not exhaustive. The IPTF welcomes comments on any of these topics, as well as descriptions of other topics that the IPTF and stakeholders should consider for the cybersecurity multistakeholder process. Note that comments are directly sought on which topics to address through the process, rather than the best solution to any given question.

    3. Please comment on what factors should be considered in selecting the issues for multistakeholder processes.

    IPTF also plans to draw on the Green Paper and earlier responses to past Requests for Public Comment; past respondents are invited to provide additional and updated viewpoints on IPTF efforts since those comments were provided.

    Implementing the Multistakeholder Process: Commenters also may wish to provide their views on how stakeholder discussions of the proposed issue(s) should be structured to ensure openness, transparency, and consensus-building. Analogies to other Internet-related multistakeholder processes, whether they are concerned with policy or technical issues, could be especially valuable.

    4. Please comment on the best structure and mechanics for the process(es). If different security issues will require different process structures, please offer guidance on how to best design an appropriate process for the issue selected.

    5. How can the IPTF promote participation from a broad range of stakeholders, i.e., from industry, civil society, academia, and international partners? In particular, how can we promote engagement from small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) that play key roles in the digital ecosystem? How critical is location for meetings, and what factors should be considered in determining where to host meetings?

    6. What procedures and technologies can promote transparency of process, including promoting discussion between stakeholders and ensuring those outside the process can understand the decisions made?

    7. What types of consensus outcomes can promote real security benefits without further adding to a compliance-oriented model of security?

    8. Would certain cybersecurity issues be better served by a single workshop or other event to raise awareness and promote independent action, rather than a longer multistakeholder, consensus-building process?

    9. How should evaluation of the processes be conducted to assess results and to ensure that recommendations and outcomes of the process remain actionable and current?

    Response to this Request for Public Comment is voluntary. Commenters are free to address any or all of the issues identified above, as well as provide information on other topics that they think are relevant to promoting voluntary coordinated action to address cybersecurity risks through an open, transparent, voluntary, consensus-based process. Please note that the Government will not pay for response preparation or for the use of any information contained in the response.

    Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 901(c).

    Dated: March 16, 2015. Angela Simpson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06344 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0748-XD841 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 joint public meeting of its Monkfish 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 Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Radisson Airport Hotel, 2081 Post Road, Warwick, RI 02886; telephone: (401) 739-3000; fax: (401) 732-9309.

    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 Monkfish Committee will meet to discuss draft alternatives for Framework Adjustment 9 that could modify the current days-at-Sea/trip limit system and possession limits. The Committee will review Plan Development Team analyses requested at the August 25, 2014 meeting. The Committee will also discuss Monkfish Research Set-Aside (RSA) priorities for 2016. The Committee may also discuss other business as necessary, e.g. the RSA program.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 16, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06307 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD840 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's (Council) Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will meet to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 9 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Courtyard by Marriott/Boston Logan Airport, 225 McClellan Highway, Boston, MA 02128; telephone: (617) 569-5250.

    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:

    Agenda items:

    The Committee will receive a report from Northeast Fisheries Science Center Regime Shifts Working Group and possibly develop comments for consideration by the Council on implications. They will also receive a report and presentation on the NOAA Fisheries Draft Climate Science Strategy and develop comments for Council consideration. The SSC will also receive a presentation on changes to Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard Guidelines proposed by NMFS/NOAA and develop comments for the Council's consideration.

    Additionally, they will receive a brief update on the development of guidelines for 5-year reviews of catch-share programs as well as a report on the National SSC V Workshop outcomes. The committee will address other business as necessary.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 16, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06306 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD842 North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory committees will hold public meetings.

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held April 6-14, 2015. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meetings will be held at the Anchorage Hilton, 500 West 3rd Avenue, Anchorage, AK.

    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Witherell, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Council will begin its plenary session at 8 a.m. on Wednesday, April 8, continuing through Tuesday, April 14, 2015. The Scientific Statistical Committee (SSC) will begin at 8 a.m. on Monday, April 6 and continue through Wednesday April 8, 2015. The Council's Advisory Panel (AP) will begin at 8 a.m. on Tuesday, April 7, and continue through Saturday April 11, 2015. The Enforcement Committee will meet from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. on Tuesday, April 7, 2015. The Halibut Recreational Quota Entity (RQE) Committee will meet from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Tuesday, April 7, 2015. All meetings are open to the public, except executive sessions.

    Council Plenary Session: The agenda for the Council's plenary session will include the following issues. The Council may take appropriate action on any of the issues identified.

    1. Executive Director's Report (including status report on joint Council/International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) meeting issues; legislative update)

    NMFS Management Report (including report on National Standard (NS) Guidelines proposed rule and Council recusal discussion) ADF&G Report NOAA Enforcement Report U.S. Coast Guard Report USFWS Report Protected Species Report National Institute for Operational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Report

    2. Cooperative Reports (American Fisheries Act (AFA), Amendment 80, Central Gulf of Alaska (CGOA) Rockfish, and Bering Sea Aleutian Island (BSAI) Crab),

    3. GOA Salmon Bycatch Genetics,

    4. Salmon Inter-cooperative Agreements (ICA)/Incentive Program Agreements (IPA) and GOA Salmon Excluder Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) Reports,

    5. Final Action on Bering Sea Salmon Bycatch,

    6. Adopt Overfish Levels/Acceptable Biological Catch (OFL/ABC) for Scallop Stock Assessment Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) and plan team report,

    7. Final Action on Gulf of Alaska (GOA) sablefish longline pots,

    8. Discussion paper on Area 4A halibut retention in sablefish pots,

    9. Initial Review on Observer coverage on small Catcher Processors (CPs),

    10. Review methodology for BSAI Crab 10-year Review (SSC only),

    11. Review National Standard 1 (NS1) Guidelines (SSC only),

    12. Research Priorities: Review Classification, management priorities,

    13. Ecosystem Committee report, Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan (BS FEP),

    14. Staff Tasking.

    The Advisory Panel will address most of the same agenda issues as the Council except B reports.

    The SSC agenda will include the following issues:

    1. Salmon Genetics 2. BSAI Crab 10-year review 3. Research Priorities 4. Scallop SAFE 5. Observer Coverage 6. Ecosystem Committee Report 7. NS1 Guidelines

    In addition to providing ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, the SSC functions as the Councils primary peer review panel for scientific information as described by the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 302(g)(1)(e), and the National Standard 2 guidelines (78 FR 43066). The peer review process is also deemed to satisfy the requirements of the Information Quality Act, including the OMB Peer Review guidelines.

    The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted athttp://www.npfmc.org. Background documents, reports, and analyses for review are posted on the Council Web site in advance of the meeting. The names and organizational affiliations of SSC members are also posted on the Web site.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. 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

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: March 16, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06308 Filed 3-18-15; 4:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No. CFPB-2015-0007] Request for Information Regarding Credit Card Market AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    Section 502(a) of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act or Act) requires the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau or CFPB) to conduct a review (Review) of the consumer credit card market, within the limits of its existing resources available for reporting purposes. In connection with conducting that Review, and in accordance with Section 502(b) of the CARD Act, the Bureau is soliciting information from the public about a number of aspects of the consumer credit card market, described further below.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before May 18, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit responsive information and other comments, identified by the document title and Docket No. CFPB-2015-0007, by any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include the document title and Docket No. CFPB-2015-0007 in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive Secretary, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive Secretary, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.

    Instructions: All submissions should include the agency name and docket number for this proposal. Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the Bureau is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments electronically. In general, all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. In addition, comments will be available for public inspection and copying at 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time. You can make an appointment to inspect the documents by telephoning (202) 435-7275.

    All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or social security numbers, should not be included. Comments generally will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For general inquiries, submission process questions, or any additional information, please contact Wei Zhang, Division of Research, Markets and Regulations, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, at (202) 435-7700, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 502(a) of the CARD Act 1 requires the Bureau to conduct a review, within the limits of its existing resources available for reporting purposes, of the consumer credit card market every two years. To inform that review, Section 502(b) 2 instructs the Bureau to seek public comment.

    1See 15 U.S.C. 1616(a).

    2See 15 U.S.C. 1616(b).

    The Bureau's first such review was published in October, 2013.3 To inform the Bureau's next review, the Bureau hereby invites members of the public, including consumers, credit card issuers, industry analysts, consumer advocates, and other interested persons to submit information and other comments relevant to the issued expressly identified in Section 2 below, as well as any information they believe is relevant to a review of the credit card market, including the impact of the CARD Act on that market.

    3 CARD Act Report, available at, http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201309_cfpb_card-act-report.pdf.

    1. Background: The CARD Act

    The CARD Act was signed into law in May 2009.4 Passage of the Act was expressly intended to “establish fair and transparent practices related to the extension of credit” in the credit card market.5 To achieve these agreed-upon purposes, the Act changed the requirements applicable to credit card pricing in a number of significant respects including direct limits on a number of pricing practices that Congress deemed unfair or unclear to consumers. A high-level summary of CARD Act changes, along with further information about the CARD Act is available on the Bureau's Web site at www.consumerfinance.gov/credit-cards.

    4 The CARD Act's provisions took effect in three stages: August 2009, February 2010, and October 2011.

    5 Public Law 111-24, 123 Stat. 1734 (2009).

    2. Issues on Which the Bureau Seeks Public Comment for Its Review

    In connection with its pending Review, the Bureau seeks information from members of the public about how the credit card market is functioning. The Bureau seeks comments in three primary areas. Firstly, the Bureau seeks comments on the continuing impact of the CARD Act on the credit card market, including but not limited to those questions explicitly outlined in Section 502(a) and in (a) through (d) below. Secondly, the Bureau seeks comments on six areas of further interest as previously outlined in the previous Review, published October 2013, delineated in (e) through (j) below. Thirdly, the Bureau has since identified additional specific areas of interest on which it specifically seeks comment, outlined in (k) through (l).

    The Bureau wants to be alerted to and understand the information that consumers, credit card issuers, consumer groups, and others believe is most relevant to the Bureau's review of the credit card market, so this list of subjects should not be viewed as exhaustive. Commenters are encouraged to address any other areas of interest or concern to them.

    Please feel free to comment generally and/or respond to any or all of the questions below but please be sure to indicate in your comments on which topic areas or questions you are commenting:

    (a) The Terms of Credit Card Agreements and the Practices of Credit Card Issuers

    How have the substantive terms and conditions of credit card agreements or the length and complexity of such agreements changed over the past two years? How have issuers changed their pricing, marketing, underwriting, or other practices?

    (b) The Effectiveness of Disclosure of Terms, Fees, and Other Expenses of Credit Card Plans

    How effective are current disclosures of rates, fees, and other cost terms of credit card accounts in conveying to consumers the costs of credit card plans? What further improvements in disclosure would benefit consumer cardholders at this point, and what costs would be incurred in providing such disclosures?

    (c) The Adequacy of Protections Against Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices or Unlawful Discrimination Relating to Credit Card Plans

    Do unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices, or unlawful discrimination, still exist in the credit card market, and if so, in what form and with what frequency and effect? How might such conduct be prevented and at what cost?

    (d) Whether implementation of the CARD Act has affected (i) the cost and availability of credit, particularly with respect to non-prime borrowers; (ii) the use of risk-based pricing; or (iii) credit card product innovation?

    What additional evidence exists since the publication of the Bureau's prior report with respect to the impact of the CARD Act on the factors listed above? Has the impact of the CARD Act on these factors changed over the past two years?

    (e) Online Disclosures

    Certain disclosures, including disclosures mandated by the CARD Act, are provided to consumers through their periodic billing statements. However, the Bureau's prior study found that most consumers who make on-line payments do not access their monthly statement and instead use online portals which do not contain these disclosures. This reflects a more general challenge of translating regulations related to disclosures largely written for a paper-and-pencil world into the modern electronic world. How do card issuers ensure that consumers using different channels, including mobile, receive effective disclosures both at the point of application and in managing existing accounts?

    (f) Rewards Products

    The Bureau's prior study observed that rewards play an important part in consumers' decisions to apply for a card but that consumer awareness of rewards terms appears to be declining. Rewards offers can be highly complex, with detailed rules regarding the eligibility for sign-on bonuses, the value of earned points, the rate at which they are earned, and the rules governing their forfeiture. Are rewards disclosures being made in a clear and transparent manner? Do consumers understand these offers in applying for rewards cards? What further improvements in disclosure would benefit consumer cardholders at this point, and what costs would be incurred in providing such disclosures?

    (g) Grace Periods

    The Bureau's prior study observed that for consumers, who do not pay their balance in full each month, a key determinant of their cost of credit is the grace period and that disclosing the complex rules governing the availability of a grace period is quite challenging. Are grace period limitations being disclosed in a clear and transparent manner? Do consumers understand the limitations? What further improvements in disclosure would benefit consumer cardholders at this point, and what costs would be incurred in providing such disclosures?

    (h) Add-On Products

    Credit card issuers market or have marketed various “add-on” products to card users, including debt protection, identity theft protection, credit score monitoring, and other products that are supplementary to the actual extension of credit. The Bureau has found through its supervisory and enforcement work that these products are frequently sold in a manner that is unfair, abusive, or deceptive. To what extent are card issuers continuing to market or permit third parties to market add-on products? What actions have issuers taken to prevent unfair, abusive, or deceptive marketing practices? What harmful practices persist regarding add-on products?

    (i) Fee Harvester Cards

    Some card issuers charge upfront fees that exceed 25% of a card's initial credit limit, but those practices have been held not to be covered by the CARD Act because a portion of the fees are paid prior to account opening. What is the prevalence and magnitude of application fees or other fee harvesting practices in connection with account opening?

    (j) Deferred Interest Products

    The Bureau's prior report found that deferred interest products—purchases which retroactively assess and charge interest if the balance is not paid in full by a specific date—can end up costing a significant segment of vulnerable consumers sizable amount of money and that it is unclear whether those consumers understand the risks entailed or how they are affected when they are retroactively assessed interest. At the same time, the Bureau found that even among subprime consumers, a majority of consumers do obtain interest-free financing through deferred interest programs and that it is unclear what alternatives are available to these consumers. Do consumers who use deferred interest promotions understand the risk of being charged retroactive interest? What is the impact on consumers who are assessed such retroactive interest? What alternatives are available to these consumers?

    (k) Debt Collection

    The collection of past due amounts on credit accounts is an important part of any credit system but also an area fraught with risks to consumers. The Bureau seeks to better understand debt collection practices within the credit card industry. What practices are used to minimize losses from delinquent customers prior to chargeoff and with what results? What practices are used to secure recoveries post charge off and with what results? To what extent do card issuers use third-party contingency collection agencies for collections of accounts and how are such relationships managed? To what extend do card issuers sell charged off accounts to debt buyers and on what terms and with what restrictions?

    (l) Ability To Pay

    The CARD Act requires issuers to assess a consumer's ability to pay before opening a credit card account or increasing a credit line. The Bureau seeks to better understand how “ability to pay” standards are being implemented in determining whether to approve an application, the amount of credit to extend initially, and whether to increase a credit line. How are card issuers determining whether applicants for a credit card have sufficient income or assets to cover an extension of new credit? How are card issuers making that determination in connection with the consideration of credit line increases? How do these standards and practices affect consumer access to credit and consumer outcomes with credit card products?

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 1616(a), (b).

    Dated: March 16, 2015. Christopher D'Angelo, Chief of Staff, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06351 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Docket No. CPSC-2011-0019] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Safety Standard for Portable Bed Rails AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) requests comments on a proposed extension of approval of a collection of information under the safety standard for portable bed rails, approved previously under OMB Control No. 3041-0149. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting an extension of this collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    DATES:

    Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2011-0019, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through www.regulations.gov. The Commission encourages you to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.

    Written Submissions: Submit written submissions by mail/hand delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to: http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at all, such information should be submitted in writing.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to: http://www.regulations.gov, and insert the docket number CPSC-2011-0019, into the “Search” box, and follow the prompts.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CPSC seeks to renew the following currently approved collection of information:

    Title: Safety Standard for Portable Bed Rails.

    OMB Number: 3041-0149.

    Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Manufacturers and importers of portable bed rails.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 17 firms supplying portable bed rails to the United States Market have been identified with an estimated 2 models/firm annually.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour/model associated with marking, labeling, and instructional requirements.

    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 34 hours (17 firms × 2 models × 1 hour).

    General Description of Collection: The Commission issued a safety standard for portable bed rails (16 CFR part 1224) on February 29, 2012 (77 FR 12182). The standard is intended to address hazards to children from use of portable bed rails. Among other requirements, the standard requires manufacturers, including importers, to meet the collection of information requirements for marking, labeling, and instructional literature for portable bed rails.

    Request for Comments

    The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:

    —Whether the collection of information described above is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information would have practical utility; —Whether the estimated burden of the proposed collection of information is accurate; —Whether the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected could be enhanced; and —Whether the burden imposed by the collection of information could be minimized by use of automated, electronic or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Alberta E. Mills, Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06295 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2013-OS-0129] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Finance and Accounting Services—Indianapolis, DFAS-ZPR, 8899 E. 56th St., Indianapolis, IN 46249, ATTN: Ms. La Zaleus D. Leach, [email protected], 317-212-6032.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Waiver/Remission of Indebtedness Application, DD Form 2789; OMB Number 0730-0009.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is used by current or former DoD Civilian employees or military members to request waiver or remission of an indebtedness owed to the Department of Defense. Under 5 U.S.C. 5584, 10 U.S.C. 2774, and 32 U.S.C. 716, certain debts arising out of erroneous payments may be waived. Under 10 U.S.C. 4837, 10 U.S.C. 6161, and 10 U.S.C. 9837, certain debts may be remitted. Information obtained through this form is used for adjudicating the request for waiver or remission.

    Affected Public: Individuals.

    Annual Burden Hours: 13,950.

    Number of Respondents: 6,200.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 6,200

    Average Burden per Response: 2.25 hours.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    The referenced United States Code sections on waivers provide for an avenue of relief for individuals who owe debts to the United States, which resulted from erroneous payments. Criteria for waiver of a debt includes a determination that there is no indication of fraud, misrepresentation, fault, or lack of good faith on the part of the individual owing the debt or any other person interested in obtaining a waiver. Information obtained through the proposed collection is needed in order to adjudicate the waiver request under the law.

    Dated: March 16, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06322 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2015-0011] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Army & Air Force Exchange Service (Exchange), DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Army & Air Force Exchange Service announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Office of the General Counsel, Compliance Division, Attn: Teresa Schreurs, 3911 South Walton Walker Blvd., Dallas, TX 75236-1598 or call the Exchange Compliance Division at 800-967-6067.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Employee Travel Files; Exchange Form 1500-013 “Request and Authorization for TDY Travel”, Exchange Form 1500-042 “Official Travel Request”; OMB Control Number 0702-XXXX.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to process official travel requests for military and civilian employees of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service; to determine eligibility of the individual's dependents to travel; to obtain the necessary clearance where foreign travel is involved, including assisting individuals in applying for passports and visas and counseling where proposed travel involves visiting/transiting communist countries and danger zones.

    Affected Public: Individuals and households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 2,700.

    Number of Respondents: 1,200.

    Responses per Respondent: 3.

    Total Annual Responses: 3,600.

    Average Burden per Response: 45 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents are Exchange employees and their dependents that are authorized to make official Exchange government travel. The completed forms are necessary to obtain this authorization and to provide the employee and their dependents with assistance to obtain visas, passports, security clearances and other travel documents as required.

    Dated: March 16, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06303 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0030] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Predominantly Black Institutions Application AGENCY:

    Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0030 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, ED will temporarily accept comments at [email protected] Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted; ED will ONLY accept comments during the comment period in this mailbox when the regulations.gov site is not available. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319, Room 2E103, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Bernadette Miles, 202-502-7616.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Predominantly Black Institutions Application.

    OMB Control Number: 1840-0797.

    Type of Review: A reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 130.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 4,550.

    Abstract: The Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Program is authorized under title III, part F of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). The PBI Program makes grant awards to eligible colleges and universities to support the strengthening of PBIs to carry out programs in the following areas: science, technology, engineering, or mathematics; health education; internationalization or globalization; teacher preparation; or improving the educational outcomes of African American males. Grants support the establishment or strengthening of such programs that are designed to increase the institutions capacity to prepare students for instruction in the above noted fields. Grants are awarded competitively. This information collection is necessary to comply with title III, part F of the HEA.

    Dated: March 16, 2015. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06290 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator or Foreign Utility Company Status Docket Nos. Duke Energy Beckjord Storage, LLC EG15-11-000 Samchully Power & Utilities 1 LLC EG15-12-000 Chief Conemaugh Power, LLC EG15-15-000 Chief Keystone Power, LLC EG15-16-000 Kay Wind, LLC EG15-17-000 Spinning Spur Wind Three, LLC EG15-18-000 Green Pastures Wind, II, Inc EG15-19-000 Briscoe Wind Farm, LLC EG15-20-000 Sierra Solar Greenworks LLC EG15-21-000 Rising Tree Wind Farm III LLC EG15-22-000 NiGen, LLC EG15-23-000 Stephens Ranch Wind Energy II, LLC EG15-24-000 Milo Wind Project, LLC EG15-25-000 Roosevelt Wind Project, LLC EG15-26-000 KMC Thermo, LLC EG15-27-000 Verso Bucksport Power LLC EG15-31-000 Verso Bucksport LLC EG15-32-000 Alterna Springerville LLC EG15-33-000 LDVF1 TEP LLC EG15-34-000 Los Vientos Windpower III, LLC EG15-35-000 Enbridge Massif du Sud Wind Project GP Inc FC15-2-000 Enbridge Saint Robert Bellarmin Wind Project GP I FC15-3-000 FuelCell Energy, Ltd FC15-4-000

    Take notice that during the months of January and February 2015, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).

    Dated: March 12, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06205 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9923-75-Region 5] Sole Source Aquifer Designation of the Mahomet Aquifer System in East-Central Illinois AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of final determination.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Section 1424(e) and in response to a petition by a coalition of cities, a town, villages, and a public university in east-central Illinois, the Regional Administrator for Region 5 of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that a portion of the Mahomet Aquifer System in east-central Illinois is a sole or principal source of drinking water and if contaminated, would create a significant hazard to public health. As a result of this action, all projects receiving Federal financial assistance are subject to review by EPA regarding whether such projects may contaminate the designated aquifer system through a recharge zone so as to create a significant hazard to public health.

    DATES:

    This determination is effective immediately.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Spaulding, EPA Region 5, Water Division, Ground Water and Drinking Water Branch, by mail at 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; by telephone at (312) 886-9262; or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Section 1424(e) of the SDWA provides as follows:

    If the Administrator determines, on his own initiative or upon petition, that an area has an aquifer which is the sole or principal drinking water source for the area and which, if contaminated, would create a significant hazard to public health, he shall publish notice of that determination in the Federal Register. After the publication of any such notice, no commitment for Federal financial assistance (through a grant, contract, loan guarantee, or otherwise) may be entered into for any project which the Administrator determines may contaminate such aquifer through a recharge zone so as to create a significant hazard to public health, but a commitment for Federal financial assistance may, if authorized under another provision of law, be entered into to plan or design the project to assure that it will not so contaminate the aquifer.

    42 U.S.C. 300h-3(e). The authority to designate an aquifer under this section has been delegated to the Regional Administrator.

    EPA in general considers a “sole or principal source” or sole source aquifer (SSA) to be an aquifer or aquifer system that is needed to supply fifty percent or more of the drinking water “for the aquifer service area,” and for which there is no reasonably available alternative source or sources that could physically, legally, and economically supply those dependent upon the aquifer. See U.S. EPA, 1987, Sole Source Aquifer Designation Decision Process, Petition Review Guidance (“EPA Petition Review Guidance”). A portion of an aquifer can be designated if it is hydrogeologically separate from the rest of the aquifer. Id. at 6. Similarly, a system of hydrogeologically connected aquifers can be designated as an SSA. Id.

    On December 12, 2012, EPA received a petition to designate a portion of the Mahomet Aquifer System in east-central Illinois as an SSA from the City of Champaign and several partners, including the Cities of Urbana, Delavan, and Gilman; the Town of Normal; the Villages of Savoy, Mansfield, and Mahomet; and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Following receipt of the petition, additional entities expressed support for the petition, including Champaign and DeWitt Counties; the Cities of Clinton and Watseka; the Villages of Armington and Waynesville; and the Illinois-American Water Company.

    In response to the petition, EPA published a notice of its intent to designate a portion of the Mahomet Aquifer System in east-central Illinois as an SSA and announced two Public Hearings in Champaign, Illinois on May 13, 2014, and in Morton, Illinois on May 14, 2014. This notice was published in two newspapers of general circulation in the area: The Champaign News Gazette and Peoria Journal Star, on March 12, 2014. This notice also announced the request for written comments during the public comment period from March 13, 2014 to June 12, 2014.

    The public comments received by EPA generally support designation. EPA also received significant comments and additional scientific studies on the geology of the Mahomet Aquifer System during the comment period. These comments and additional studies required extensive evaluation and consideration. EPA has responded to the public comments in a document titled: “Responsiveness Summary—Sole Source Aquifer Petition for the Mahomet Aquifer System in East-Central Illinois—March 2015.” The Responsiveness Summary and other relevant documents are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following locations: Champaign Public Library, 200 W. Green St., Champaign, Illinois; Bloomington Public Library, 205 E. Olive St., Bloomington, Illinois; Pekin Public Library, 301 S. Fourth St., Pekin, Illinois; Havana Public Library, 201 W. Adams St., Havana, Illinois; Watseka Public Library, 201 S. 4th St., Watseka, Illinois; U.S. EPA's Region 5 Office Library, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois.

    II. Description of Mahomet Aquifer System in East-Central Illinois

    The Mahomet Aquifer is located in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and possibly West Virginia. This SSA designation is for a hydraulically and hydrogeologically distinct portion of the aquifer system in east-central Illinois bounded in the east by the Iroquois River and the North Fork of the Vermilion River and in the west by the Illinois River. Within the SSA area, deposits of saturated sand or sand and gravel found within the Quaternary deposits are aquifers that provide most (approximately 94 percent) of the water used in this region. These Quaternary deposits directly overlie the bedrock and bury features on the bedrock surface. As a result of geological processes that have shaped the region, the hydrogeology is very complex.

    To define the boundary of the designated Mahomet Aquifer System, EPA verified that the 500-foot contour line and saturated thicknesses of the Mahomet Aquifer best represent the buried valleys that contain enough sand and gravel to be significant sources of groundwater. The Mahomet Aquifer has been mapped by studies that used boreholes to penetrate into the top surface of the Mahomet sand, providing greater accuracy on the extent of the aquifer than the bedrock surface alone. Recharge of the Mahomet Aquifer occurs throughout the designated SSA area. While much of the eastern portion of the SSA area is confined by low-permeability glacial till, studies demonstrate that recharge of the principal aquifer is occurring in this area, even though it may be occurring at a low rate. Recharge of the Mahomet Aquifer occurs at a much greater rate in the western portion of the SSA area. In addition, there are studies documenting connections between the aquifer zones in the shallower formations, namely the Glasford Formation, and the Mahomet Aquifer within the SSA area. For these reasons and those explained in more detail in the Responsiveness Summary, EPA is designating the entire aquifer system within the SSA area.

    III. Basis for Determination

    In accordance with Section 1424(e) of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300h-3(e), the Regional Administrator considered the following factors to determine whether the petition should be granted: (1) Whether the Mahomet Aquifer System in east-central Illinois is the area's sole or principal source of drinking water; and (2) whether contamination of the aquifer system would create a significant hazard to public health. Based on information available to EPA, the Regional Administrator makes the following findings 1 in favor of designating the Mahomet Aquifer System in east-central Illinois as an SSA:

    1 The findings that support designation are set out more fully in an EPA publication titled: “Support Document for Proposed Designation of the Mahomet Aquifer System as a Sole Source.” This document is available to the public at the locations identified above.

    (1) The Mahomet Aquifer System provides approximately 94 percent of the drinking water to the service area today. This exceeds the 50 percent usage criteria for SSA designation in EPA's guidance. EPA Petition Review Guidance at 8. Moreover, demand on this aquifer system is expected to increase in the future. The Mahomet Aquifer System currently provides an estimated 53 million gallons per day (mgd) of drinking water to approximately 120 public water supplies and thousands of rural wells, together serving over 500,000 people. There currently are no intakes from surface waters for public water supplies within the aquifer service area.

    (2) Over 50 percent of the population in the Mahomet Aquifer System service area would be unable to find either a physically available or economically feasible alternative source of drinking water should the aquifer system become contaminated. Potential alternative sources of drinking water near the proposed aquifer service area include: (1) Sand and gravel aquifers outside the SSA area; (2) bedrock aquifers; (3) reservoirs; and (4) free-flowing streams and rivers. Due to low potential yields and poor water quality, bedrock aquifers are not a viable alternative source of drinking water. Similarly, nearby water supply reservoirs lack enough additional capacity to serve as viable alternative drinking water sources. Finally, for over 70 percent of the communities that are near enough to use sand and gravel aquifers outside the SSA area or free-flowing streams and rivers to deliver drinking water of the same or better quality, it would be economically infeasible to do so.

    (3) Contamination of the Mahomet Aquifer System would create a significant hazard to public health for east-central Illinois. The Mahomet Aquifer System is a significant water resource that is critically important to the safety and economic development of the area. It is the primary source of drinking water for over 100 communities and tens of thousands of rural homeowners located within 14 Illinois counties. In addition, the Mahomet Aquifer System furnishes water to many self-supplied agricultural, industrial, institutional, and commercial users that rely upon it for cooling, process water, and row-crop irrigation, providing an estimated 170 mgd to these users.

    IV. Information Relevant to the Designation

    The information referenced to make this designation is available to the public and may be inspected during normal business hours at EPA Region 5 Library, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. In addition, documents related to this designation are available at area public libraries listed above.

    V. Project Review

    Following publication of this determination, “no commitment for Federal financial assistance (through a grant, contract, loan guarantee, or otherwise) may be entered into for any project which the Administrator determines may contaminate such aquifer through a recharge zone so as to create a significant hazard to public health, but a commitment for Federal financial assistance may, if authorized under another provision of law, be entered into to plan or design the project to assure that it will not so contaminate the aquifer.” 42 U.S.C. 300h-3(e). EPA may review any such proposed projects and, where possible, make suggestions or recommendations to plan or design the project to ensure it will not contaminate the aquifer system so as to create a significant hazard to public health. Proposed projects that are funded entirely by state, local, or private concerns are not subject to SSA review by EPA.

    The project review area for this SSA consists of the designated SSA area plus three watersheds adjacent to the designated SSA area that provide recharge to the Mahomet Aquifer System. These watersheds are the Sugar Creek, the Sangamon River near Fisher, and the Tributary to the Middle Fork Vermilion River. A map of both the SSA area and the project review area can be found at the locations listed above.

    VI. Conclusion

    Today's action designates the Mahomet Aquifer System in east-central Illinois as an SSA. The designated SSA area and project review area are located in the following counties in Illinois: Cass, Champaign, DeWitt, Ford, Iroquois, Livingston, Logan, Macon, Mason, McLean, Menard, Piatt, Tazewell, Vermilion, and Woodford. Maps depicting the designated SSA and project review areas are available to the public at the locations listed above.

    Dated: March 11, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06365 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0838; FRL-9923-58] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection and Comment Request; Assessment of Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Federal Procurement AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR, entitled: Assessment of Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Federal Procurement, and identified by EPA ICR No. 2516.01 and OMB Control No. 2070-new, represents a new request. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval under the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment. EPA is also announcing the testing of draft guidelines and a pilot project on an assessment approach for recognizing product environmental performance standards and ecolabels for Federal procurement in the following three categories: Furniture, building flooring, and building paints/coatings/removers. An additional purchase category may be piloted, depending on available resources and other considerations. EPA is seeking comment on the criteria/qualifications that will be used for the selection of the multi-stakeholder panel members, who will refine the draft guidelines for specific sectors. In addition, EPA is seeking volunteer standards development organizations and ecolabel programs to be assessed per the draft guidelines.

    DATES:

    Comments on multi-stakeholder panel member criteria/qualifications must be received on or before April 20, 2015. Expressions of interest to participate in the pilot and comments on the ICR must be received on or before May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your expressions of interest to participate in the pilot and comments on the ICR and multi-stakeholder panel member criteria/qualifications, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0838, 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: Julie Shannon, Chemistry, Economics, and Sustainable Strategies Division (7409M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8834; 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. Testing of Updated Draft Guidelines

    In the Federal Register of November 27, 2013 (78 FR 70938) (FRL-9394-6), EPA issued for public comment draft guidelines for product environmental performance standards and ecolabels for voluntary use in Federal procurement. EPA's goal in developing these draft guidelines is to create a “transparent, fair, and consistent approach to selecting product environmental performance standards and ecolabels to support the Agency's mission and federal sustainable acquisition mandates.” The fundamental aim of the draft guidelines is to establish a cross-sector framework to be used in recognizing non-governmental environmental standards (and consequently, environmentally preferable products meeting these standards) for use in Federal procurement.

    The draft guidelines include four sections:

    1. Guidelines for the process for developing standards refers to the procedures used to develop, maintain, and update an environmental standard.

    2. Guidelines for the environmental effectiveness of the standards refers to the criteria in the environmental standard or ecolabel that support the claim of environmental preferability.

    3. Guidelines for conformity assessment refers to the procedures and practices by which products are assessed for conformity to the requirements specified by standards and ecolabeling programs.

    4. Guidelines for Management of Ecolabeling Programs refers to the organizational and management practices of an ecolabeling program.

    EPA has responded to public comments and released a new version of the “Guidelines for the Environmental Effectiveness of the Standards” at http://www.epa.gov/draftGuidelines/responses.html. The majority of public comments supported EPA undertaking—with key external entity and stakeholder participation—additional work to further refine the draft guidelines and test a potential approach to assessing standards and ecolabels. Therefore, in this next phase of work, EPA is contracting with an entity to convene a coordinating Governance Committee, product category-specific multi-stakeholder panels, and independent assessment entity(ies) to develop and pilot test an approach in three product categories: Furniture, building flooring, and building paints/coatings/removers. These sectors were chosen because they meet some or all of the following criteria:

    • Potentially significant environmental and/or human health impact (based on lifecycle assessments and hazard and risk assessments).

    • Opportunity for environmental and/or human health improvement through private sector standards/ecolabels.

    • Significant volume of Federal purchases.

    • Current Federal sustainable acquisition mandates in the category are limited, out-of-date, and/or could be augmented with private sector standards.

    An additional to-be-determined purchase category may be piloted, depending upon available resources and other considerations. In addition, due to significant interest, EPA will explore the potential for the draft guidelines to apply to service sector standards and ecolabels (e.g., services related to building maintenance, cafeterias, and professional consultants, among others). The potential pilot for this sector would not assess service sector standards; rather the analysis and recommendations could potentially position the draft guidelines to accommodate such assessments in 2016 and beyond.

    II. Opportunity To Participate in a Pilot

    Standards development organizations, ecolabel programs, and certification entities that have product environmental performance standards and/or ecolabels that cover one or more of the three product categories, and could be considered for use in Federal procurement per E.O. 13514, entitled: Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance (74 FR 52117, October 8, 2009), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) (48 CFR 23.103), and Federal government standards policy, should consider submitting those standards and ecolabels for assessment as a part of the pilot project.

    Those standards and ecolabels assessed will provide information per product-category specific checklists (based on the draft guidelines), to be developed by multi-stakeholder panels, as described at http://www.epa.gov/epp/draftGuidelines/pilot.html. Each purchase category panel shall include a balanced group of relevant stakeholders in the environmental and human health performance standards and ecolabels space and ensure an objective, open, and consensus-driven process and credible results. The stakeholder types that may be represented on the multi-stakeholder panels include, but are not limited to:

    • Standards development organizations.

    • Ecolabel program managers/system owners.

    • Conformity assessment bodies.

    • Federal purchasers.

    • Other large institutional purchasers such as state governments or universities.

    • Manufacturers and/or vendors in the product categories targeted for assessment.

    • Professional societies, users groups, and industry consortia.

    • Research and development organizations and academia.

    • Non-governmental organizations widely respected for their work on public health, environmental protection, and sustainability issues.

    • Federal government agencies knowledgeable in conformity assessment.

    EPA is seeking input from the public regarding the multi-stakeholder panel member criteria/qualifications. EPA proposed the following:

    • Knowledge of the environmental and/or human health impacts of the particular product category.

    • Experience working with diverse stakeholders towards consensus.

    • Familiarity with the draft Guidelines and Federal sustainable acquisition mandates.

    • Familiarity with standards development and conformity assessment approaches.

    • Ability to devote the necessary time to the panel (including one meeting and regular conference calls).

    • Willingness to sign a conflict of interest disclosure form.

    III. Information Collection Request (ICR) A. What comments are sought on the ICR?

    Pursuant to the PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it 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 estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.

    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses and non-profit organizations (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses and non-profit organizations affected by this collection.

    B. What information collection activity or ICR does this apply to?

    Title: Assessment of Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Federal Procurement.

    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 2516.01.

    OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070—New.

    ICR status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

    Abstract: EPA is engaging in this collection pursuant to the authority in the Pollution Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 13103(b)(11)), which requires EPA to “Identify opportunities to use Federal procurement to encourage source reduction” and section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), which requires Federal agencies to “use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities.” Federal agencies need this assessment per the draft guidelines to determine which, among sometimes dozens of private sector standards within a single purchase category, are appropriate and effective in meeting Federal procurement goals and mandates.

    Federal agencies must comply with the following sustainability-related purchasing mandates: Section 2(h) of E.O. 13514; section 6002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6002); section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (7 U.S.C. 8102); the Energy Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 13201 et seq.); section 2(d) of E.O. 13423, entitled: Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management (72 FR 3919, January 26, 2007); and the FAR, including 48 CFR part 23, entitled: Environment, Energy and Water Efficiency, Renewable Energy Technologies, Occupational Safety, and Drug-Free Workplace (see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement_index_green).

    Via NTTAA, Federal agencies are required to “use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities,” except when an agency determines that such use “is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.” OMB Circular A-119, entitled: Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities, reaffirms Federal agency use of non-governmental standards in procurement.

    While Federal purchasing policy is clear for the several standards and ecolabels that are listed in statute, regulation, or Executive Order, the lack of independently assessed information about and Federal guidance on using other product environmental performance standards and ecolabels often results in an inconsistent approach by Federal purchasers and confusion and uncertainty for vendors and manufacturers.

    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 8.5 hours per response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:

    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR are standards development organizations, ecolabeling programs, and environmental certification entities.

    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 20.

    Frequency of response: Once during 2015 pilot; and, a to-be-determined frequency depending upon learnings from the pilot.

    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 2.

    Estimated total annual burden hours: 340 hours.

    Estimated total annual costs: $24,711.20 for burden hours, and $0 estimated costs for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

    C. What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: March 11, 2015. James Jones, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06275 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0176; FRL-9924-61] Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a premanufacture notice (PMN); an application for a test marketing exemption (TME), both pending and/or expired; and a periodic status report on any new chemicals under EPA review and the receipt of notices of commencement (NOC) to manufacture those chemicals. This document covers the period from January 2, 2015 to January 30, 2015.

    DATES:

    Comments identified by the specific PMN number or TME number, must be received on or before April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0176 and the specific PMN number or TME number for the chemical related to your comment, 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: Jim Rahai, Information Management Division (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8593; 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?

    This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitter of the PMNs addressed in this action.

    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?

    This document provides receipt and status reports, which cover the period from January 2, 2015 to January 30, 2015, and consists of the PMNs and TMEs both pending and/or expired, and the NOCs to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

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

    Section 5 of TSCA requires that EPA periodical publish in the Federal Register receipt and status reports, which cover the following EPA activities required by provisions of TSCA section 5.

    EPA classifies a chemical substance as either an “existing” chemical or a “new” chemical. Any chemical substance that is not on EPA's TSCA Inventory is classified as a “new chemical,” while those that are on the TSCA Inventory are classified as an “existing chemical.” For more information about the TSCA Inventory go to: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/inventory.htm. Anyone who plans to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, before initiating the activity. Section 5(h)(1) of TSCA authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application, to manufacture (includes import) or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a), for “test marketing” purposes, which is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems.

    Under TSCA sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3), EPA is required to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish in the Federal Register periodic status reports on the new chemicals under review and the receipt of NOCs to manufacture those chemicals.

    IV. Receipt and Status Reports

    In Table I. of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the PMNs received by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the PMN, the date the PMN was received by EPA, the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN, the submitting manufacturer/importer, the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the PMN, and the chemical identity.

    Table I—83 PMNs Received From 01/02/2015 to 01/30/2015 Case No. Received date Projected
  • notice
  • end date
  • Manufacturer importer Use Chemical
    P-15-0171 1/2/2015 4/2/2015 CBI (G) Potable water-treatment media (G) Nitrogen-functional activated carbon. P-15-0174 1/6/2015 4/6/2015 CBI (G) Destructive use (G) Carbamic acid, hydroxyalkyl ester. P-15-0175 1/6/2015 4/6/2015 CBI (G) Open, non-dispersive (G) Blocked polyisocyanate. P-15-0176 1/9/2015 4/9/2015 Henkel Corporation (S) Chemical intermediate to cureable monomer (S) 6-Mercapto-1-Hexanol. P-15-0177 1/8/2015 4/8/2015 CBI (G) Catalyst used in the process to manufacture a crop protection chemical (G) Phenol, 2,2′-[1,2-disubstituted-1,2-ethanediyl]bis(iminomethylene) bis[substituted-. P-15-0178 1/8/2015 4/8/2015 H.B.Fuller Company (G) Industrial Adhesive (G) Long chain aliphatic acid polymers, with adipic acid, di-meterephthalate, alkane acid, aromatic isocyanate and neopentyl glycol. P-15-0179 1/8/2015 4/8/2015 H.B.Fuller Company Industrial Adhesive (G) Long chain aliphatic acid polymers, with adipic acid, di-meterephthalate, alkane acid, aromatic isocyanate and neopentyl glycol. P-15-0180 1/7/2015 4/7/2015 Munzing (G) Dispersant/wetting agent (G) Substituted epoxide, polymer with epoxide, substituted alkyl methyl ether, polymer with cyclic anhydride polymer with ethenylbenzene, imidazole alkylamine and hydroxide. P-15-0181 1/7/2015 4/7/2015 Munzing (G) Dispersant/wetting agent (G) Cyclic anhydride polymer with ethenylbenzene, ester with -methyl—Hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), imide with substituted epoxide, polymer with epoxide, substituted alkyl methyl ether, compound with imidazole alkylamine. P-15-0182 1/7/2015 4/7/2015 Munzing (G) Dispersant/wetting agent (G) Cyclic anhydride polymer with ethenylbenzene, imide, imide with substituted epoxide, polymer with epoxide, substituted alkyl methyl ether, reaction products with imidazole alkylamine and substituted alkyldiamine. P-15-0183 1/7/2015 4/7/2015 Munzing (G) Dispersant/wetting agent (G) 2,5-Furandione, polymer with ethylbenzene, ester with polyethoxylated alkanol, compound with substituted aminoalkohol. P-15-0184 1/8/2015 4/8/2015 CBI (G) Oil production (G) Alkylaminopropanamide, N-[dialkyl amino-propyl], salt. P-15-0185 1/8/2015 4/8/2015 CBI (G) Oil production (G) Alkylaminopropanamide, N-[dialkyl amino-propyl], salt. P-15-0186 1/8/2015 4/8/2015 CBI (G) Oil production (G) Alkylaminopropanamide, N-[dialkyl amino-propyl], salt. P-15-0187 1/8/2015 4/8/2015 CBI (G) Oil production (G) Alkylaminopropanamide, N-[dialkyl amino-propyl], salt. P-15-0188 1/16/2015 4/16/2015 Allnex USA Inc. (S) Pigment wetting; flexible ultra violet (uv)-curable resin (G) Carbomoncycles, polymer with substituted heteromonocycle, 2-(2-alkyl-1-oxo-2-alkenyl) oxy] alkyl hydrogen alkanedioate. P-15-0189 1/19/2015 4/19/2015 CBI (G) Antistatic agent (G) Alkane carboxylic acid ester with alkanepolyol. P-15-0190 1/19/2015 4/19/2015 Industrial Speciality Chemicals (G) Cationization of starch (G) Halogenated alkylaminium. P-15-0192 1/20/2015 4/20/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0193 1/20/2015 4/20/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0194 1/20/2015 4/20/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0195 1/20/2015 4/20/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0196 1/20/2015 4/20/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0197 1/20/2015 4/20/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive oem and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0198 1/20/2015 4/20/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0199 1/21/2015 4/21/2015 CBI (G) Component for gas absorbtion media (G) Metallic salt of dicarboxylic acid. P-15-0200 1/21/2015 4/21/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0201 1/21/2015 4/21/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0203 1/21/2015 4/21/2015 Firmenich Incorporated (G) As part of a fragrance formula (S) Phenol, 3-propyl-. P-15-0204 1/21/2015 4/21/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilane, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0205 1/21/2015 4/21/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0206 1/21/2015 4/21/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0207 1/21/2015 4/21/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0209 1/21/2015 4/21/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilane, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0210 1/21/2015 4/21/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0211 1/21/2015 4/21/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0212 1/21/2015 4/21/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0213 1/21/2015 4/21/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0214 1/21/2015 4/21/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0215 1/21/2015 4/21/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0216 1/21/2015 4/21/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0217 1/21/2015 4/21/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0218 1/21/2015 4/21/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilane, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0219 1/22/2015 4/22/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0220 1/22/2015 4/22/2015 TSE Industries, Inc (S) Formulation ingredient for coating industry (S) N-[3-[[[3-ethoxy-1-(ethoxycarbonyl)-3-oxopropyl]amino]methyl]-3,5,5-trimethylcyclohexyl]-,1,4-diethyl ester. P-15-0221 1/22/2015 4/22/2015 CBI (G) Ingredient in industrial adhesive (G) Isocyanate prepolymer. P-15-0222 1/22/2015 4/22/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0223 1/22/2015 4/22/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with mica, metal oxide, zirconium oxide. P-15-0224 1/22/2015 4/22/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0225 1/22/2015 4/22/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0226 1/22/2015 4/22/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0227 1/22/2015 4/22/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0228 1/22/2015 4/22/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0229 1/21/2015 4/21/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilane, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0230 1/22/2015 4/22/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0231 1/22/2015 4/22/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0232 1/22/2015 4/22/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0233 1/22/2015 4/22/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0234 1/22/2015 4/22/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0235 1/22/2015 4/22/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilane, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0236 1/22/2015 4/22/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0237 1/23/2015 4/23/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0238 1/23/2015 4/23/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilanes, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0239 1/23/2015 4/23/2015 CBI (S) Pigment for automotive coatings to be used in automotive OEM and refinish (G) Substituted alkylsilane, reaction products with a mixture of metal oxides. P-15-0241 1/26/2015 4/26/2015 Sika Corporation (G) Adhesive component (G) Polyurethane. P-15-0242 1/27/2015 4/27/2015 CBI (G) Coating Resin (G) Heteropolycyclic, polymer with alkanedioic acid, di-alkenoate. P-15-0246 1/29/2015 4/29/2015 DIC International (USA) LLC (G) Surfactant for uv curable materials (G) Fluorinated acrylate polymer. L-15-0184 1/29/2015 4/29/2015 CBI (G) Photolithography (G) Methacrylic resin. P-15-0247 1/29/2015 4/29/2015 H.B. Fuller Company (G) Industrial Adhesive (S) Pending Letter of Support. P-15-0250 1/30/2015 4/30/2015 CBI (G) Surfactant (G) Oxirane, alkyl-, polymer with oxirane, alkyl carboxyalkyll ethers, alkali metal salts. P-15-0251 1/30/2015 4/30/2015 BIMAX Inc. (S) Photoinitiator for an adhesive (S) Methanone, phenyl [4-2-propen-1-yloxy)phenyl]-. P-15-0252 1/30/2015 4/30/2015 CBI (G) Destructive use (G) Titanium salt, reaction products with silica. P-15-0253 1/30/2015 4/30/2015 CBI (G) Destructive use (G) Organometallic, reaction product with titanium salt, zirconium metallocene, and silica. P-15-0254 1/30/2015 4/30/2015 CBI (G) Coating material for electronics (G) Amic acid. P-15-0255 1/30/2015 4/30/2015 CBI (G) Coating material for electronics (G) Polyamic acid. P-15-0256 1/30/2015 4/30/2015 CBI (G) Coating material for electronics (G) Polyamic acid. P-15-0257 1/30/2015 4/30/2015 CBI (G) Coating material for electronics (G) Polyamic acid. P-15-0258 1/30/2015 4/30/2015 CBI (G) Coating material for electronics (G) Polyamic acid. P-15-0259 1/30/2015 4/30/2015 CBI (G) PyroOil used in blending & diluent applications (G) Tire-derived PyroOil used in blending and diluent applications P-15-0260 1/30/2015 4/30/2015 CBI (G) Coating material for electronics (G) Polyamic acid. P-15-0261 1/30/2015 4/30/2015 CBI (G) Coating material for electronics (G) polyamic acid. P-15-0262 1/30/2015 4/30/2015 CBI (G) Coating material for electronics (G) Polyamic acid. P-15-0263 1/31/2015 5/1/2015 CBI (G) Diesel fuel additive (G) Ethylene vinyl acetate polymer.

    In Table II. of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the TMEs received by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the TME, the date the TME was received by EPA, the projected end date for EPA's review of the TME, the submitting manufacturer/importer, the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the TME, and the chemical identity.

    Table II-4—TMEs Received From 1/02/2015 to 1/30/2015 Case No. Received date Projected notice end date Manufacter importer Use Chemical T-15-0004 1/8/2015 2/22/2015 CBI (G) Oil production (G) Alkylaminopropanamide, N-[dialkyl amino-propyl], salt. T-15-0005 1/8/2015 2/22/2015 CBI (G) Oil production (G) Alkylaminopropanamide, N-[dialkyl amino-propyl], salt. T-15-0006 1/8/2015 2/22/2015 CBI (G) Oil production (G) Alkylaminopropanamide, N-[dialkyl amino-propyl], salt. T-15-0007 1/8/2015 2/22/2015 CBI (G) Oil production (G) Alkylaminopropanamide, N-[dialkyl amino-propyl], salt.

    In Table III. of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the NOCs received by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the NOC, the date the NOC was received by EPA, the projected end date for EPA's review of the NOC, and chemical identity.

    Table III-9—NOCs Received From 01/02/2015 to 01/30/2015 Case No. Received date Commencement notice end date Chemical P-14-0468 1/5/2015 12/24/2014 (S) Ethanesulfonic acid, 2-[(2-aminoethyl)amino]-, sodium salt (1:1), polymer with 1,6-diisocyanatohexane, 1,6-hexanediol, 1,3-isobenzofurandione and 5-isocyanato-1-(isocyanatomethyl)-1,3,3-trimethylcyclohexane*. P-14-0004 1/7/2015 12/10/2014 (S) Phenol, 4,4′-(1-methylethylidene)bis-, polymer with 2,2′-[(1-methylethylidene)bis(4,1-phenyleneoxymethylene)], reaction products with N1,N1-diethyl-1,3-propanediamine*. P-14-0003 1/7/2015 12/20/2014 (G) Cashew nutshell liquid, epoxidized, polymer with formaldehyde-phenol polymer glycidyl ether. P-14-0733 1/13/2015 12/18/2014 (G) Acrylic modified polyurethane resin. P-13-0874 1/16/2015 12/20/2014 (G) Substituted phenol. P-13-0875 1/16/2015 12/20/2014 (G) Substituted phenol. P-13-0876 1/16/2015 12/20/2014 (G) Substituted phenol. P-13-0877 1/16/2015 12/20/2014 (G) Substituted phenol. P-14-0861 1/21/2015 12/29/2014 (G) Alkyl alkenoic acid, alkyl ester, telomer with alkyl alkenoate, trialkoxysilyl substituted alkane and trilalkoxysilyl alkyl alkyl alkenoate, bis substituted diazenyl-initiated.

    If you are interested in information that is not included in these tables, you may contact EPA as described in Unit III. to access additional non-CBI information that may be available.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: March 12, 2015. Darryl S. Ballard, Acting Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06223 Filed 3-18-15; 4:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCIES:

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Information Collection—Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures—Extension Without Change.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) gives notice that it is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for a three-year renewal of the information collection described below.

    DATES:

    Written comments on this notice must be submitted on or before April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR and applicable supporting documentation submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from Kathleen Oram, Senior Attorney, (202) 663-4681, Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. Comments on this final notice must be submitted to Chad A. Lallemand in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or electronically mailed to [email protected] Comments should also be sent to Bernadette Wilson, Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. Written comments of six or fewer pages may be faxed to the Executive Secretariat at (202) 663-4114. (There is no toll free FAX number.) Receipt of FAX transmittals will not be acknowledged, except that the sender may request confirmation of receipt by calling the Executive Secretariat staff at (202) 663-4070 (voice) or (202) 663-4074 (TTD). (These are not toll free numbers). Instead of sending written comments to EEOC, you may submit comments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments. All comments received through this portal will be posted without change, including any personal information you provide.

    Copies of comments submitted by the public to EEOC directly or through the Federal eRulemaking Portal will be available for review, by advance appointment only, at the Commission's library between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time or can be reviewed at http://www.regulations.gov. Persons who schedule an appointment in the EEOC Library, FOIA Reading Room, and need assistance to view the comments will be provided with appropriate aids upon request, such as readers or print magnifiers. To schedule an appointment to inspect the comments at EEOC's library, contact the library staff at (202) 663-4630 (voice) or (202) 663-4641 (TTY). (These are not toll-free numbers.)

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathleen Oram, Senior Attorney, at (202) 663-4681 (voice), or Thomas J. Schlageter, Assistant Legal Counsel, (202) 663-4668 (voice) or (202) 663-7026 (TDD). Requests for this notice in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs at (202) 663-4191 (voice) or (202) 663-4494 (TTY).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Introduction

    A notice that EEOC would be submitting this request to the Office of Management and Budget for a three-year approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) was published in the Federal Register on December 17, 2014, allowing for a 60 day comment period. 79 FR 75151 (Dec. 17, 2014). EEOC did not receive any comments in response to its December 17, 2014 notice.

    Overview of Collection

    Collection Title: Recordkeeping Requirements of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 CFR part 1607, 41 CFR part 60-3, 28 CFR part 50, 5 CFR part 300.

    OMB Number: 3046-0017.

    Type of Respondent: Businesses or other institutions; Federal Government; State or local governments and farms.

    North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code: Multiple.

    Standard Industrial Classification Code (SIC): Multiple.

    Description of Affected Public: Any employer, Government contractor, labor organization, or employment agency covered by the Federal equal employment opportunity laws.

    Respondents: 914,843.

    Responses1 : 914,843.

    1 The number of respondents is equal to the number of responses (i.e. one response per person).

    Recordkeeping Hours: 6,372,498 per year.

    Number of Forms: None.

    Form Number: None.

    Frequency of Report: None.

    Abstract: The Uniform Guidelines provide fundamental guidance for all Title VII-covered employers about the use of employment selection procedures. The records addressed by UGESP are used by respondents to ensure that they are complying with Title VII and Executive Order 11246; by the Federal agencies that enforce Title VII and Executive Order 11246 to investigate, conciliate, and litigate charges of employment discrimination; and by complainants to establish violations of Federal equal employment opportunity laws. While there is no data available to quantify these benefits, the collection of accurate applicant flow data enhances each employer's ability to address any deficiencies in recruitment and selection processes, including detecting barriers to equal employment opportunity.

    Burden Statement: There are no reporting requirements associated with UGESP. The burden being estimated is the cost of collecting and storing a job applicant's gender, race, and ethnicity data. The only paperwork burden derives from this recordkeeping.

    Only employers covered under Title VII and Executive Order 11246 are subject to UGESP. For the purpose of burden calculation, employers with 15 or more employees are counted. The number of such employers is estimated at 914,843, which combines estimates from private employment,2 the public sector,3 colleges and universities,4 and referral unions.5

    2 Source: Census Bureau 2011 County Business Patterns: Number of Firms, Number of Establishments, Employment, and Annual Payroll by Enterprise Employment Size for the United States and States, Totals: 2011, Release Date 12.13. (https://www.census.gov/econ/susb/.) Select U.S. & states, Totals. Downloaded on October 2, 2014.

    3 Source of original data: 2012 Census of Governments: Employment. Individual Government Data File (http://www.census.gov/govs/apes/), Local Downloadable Data zip file 12ind_all_tabs.xls. The original number of government entities was adjusted to only include those with 15 or more employees.

    4 Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS, Fall 2013. Number and percentage distribution of Title IV institutions, by control of institution, level of institution, and region: United States and other U.S. jurisdictions, academic year 2013-1(http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2014066rev).

    5 EEO-3 Reports filed by referral unions in 2012 with EEOC.

    This burden assessment is based on an estimate of the number of job applications submitted to all Title VII-covered employers in one year, including paper-based and electronic applications. The total number of job applications submitted every year to covered employers is estimated to be 1,529,399,487, based on a National Organizations Survey 6 average of approximately 35 applications 7 for every hire and a Bureau of Labor Statistics data estimate of 43,414,608 annual hires.8 This figure also includes 119,920 applicants for union membership reported on the EEO-3 form for 2012.

    6 The National Organizations Survey is a survey of business organizations across the United States in which the unit of analysis is the actual workplace (http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/04074).

    7 The number of applications provided by NOS is 35.225 and therefore calculations will not result in the same total amount due to rounding.

    8 Bureau of Labor Statistics Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, 2013 annual level data (Not seasonally adjusted), (http://www.bls.gov/jlt/data.htm) is the source of the original data. The BLS figure (50,718,000) has been adjusted to only include hires by firms with 15 or more employees.

    The employer burden associated with collecting and storing applicant demographic data is based on the following assumptions: applicants would need to be asked to provide three pieces of information—sex, race/ethnicity, and an identification number (a total of approximately 13 keystrokes); the employer would need to transfer information received to a database either manually or electronically; and the employer would need to store the 13 characters of information for each applicant. Recordkeeping costs and burden are assumed to be the time cost associated with entering 13 keystrokes.

    Assuming that the required recordkeeping takes 30 seconds per record, and assuming a total of 1,529,399,487 paper and electronic applications per year (as calculated above), the resulting UGESP burden hours would be 6,372,498. Based on a wage rate of $15.48 per hour for the individuals entering the data, the collection and storage of applicant demographic data would come to approximately $98,646,267 per year for Title VII-covered employers. We expect that the foregoing assumptions are over-inclusive, because many employers have electronic job application processes that should be able to capture applicant flow data automatically.

    While the burden hours and costs for the UGESP recordkeeping requirement seem very large, the average burden per employer is relatively small. We estimate that UGESP applies to 914,843 employers. Therefore the cost per covered employer is less than $108 ($98,646,267 divided by 914,843 is equal to $107.87). Additionally UGESP allows for simplified recordkeeping for employers with more than 15 but less than 100 employees.9

    9 See 29 CFR 1607.15A(1): Simplified recordkeeping for users with less than 100 employees. In order to minimize recordkeeping burdens on employers who employ one hundred (100) or fewer employees, and other users not required to file EEO-1, et seq., reports, such users may satisfy the requirements of this section 15 if they maintain and have available records showing, for each year: (a) The number of persons hired, promoted, and terminated for each job, by sex, and where appropriate by race and national origin; (b)The number of applicants for hire and promotion by sex and where appropriate by race and national origin; and (c) The selection procedures utilized (either standardized or not standardized).

    Dated: March 16, 2015. Jenny R. Yang, Chair, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06345 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
    EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting Time and Date:

    Wednesday, April 15, 2015, 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time.

    Place:

    Miami Dade College, 500 NE 2nd Avenue, Wolfson Conference Meeting Room #7128, Miami, Florida 33132.

    Status:

    The meeting will be open to the public.

    Matters to be Considered:

    Open Session:

    1. Announcement of Notation Votes, and

    2. EEOC at 50: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Discrimination in the 21st Century Workplace.

    Note:

    In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the meeting will be open to public observation of the Commission's deliberations and voting. (In addition to publishing notices on EEOC Commission meetings in the Federal Register, the Commission also provides information about Commission meetings on its Web site, www.eeoc.gov., and provides a recorded announcement a week in advance on future Commission sessions.)

    Please telephone (202) 663-7100 (voice) and (202) 663-4074 (TTY) at any time for information on these meetings. The EEOC provides sign language interpretation and Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) services at Commission meetings for the hearing impaired. Requests for other reasonable accommodations may be made by using the voice and TTY numbers listed above. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Bernadette B. Wilson, Acting Executive Officer on (202) 663-4077.

    Dated: March 17, 2015. Bernadette B. Wilson, Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06440 Filed 3-17-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [3060-0910] 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 the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 18, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Benish Shah, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact [email protected], (202) 418-7866.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0910.

    Title: Third Report and Order in CC Docket No. 94-102 To Ensure Compatibility With Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

    Number of Respondents: 794 respondents; 794 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 1, 4(i), 201, 303, 309 and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 794 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: N/A.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: The information submitted to the Commission will provide public service answering points (PSAPs), providers of location technology, investors, manufacturers, local exchange carriers, and the Commission with valuable information necessary for full Phase II E911 service implementation. These reports will provide helpful, if not essential information for coordinating carrier plans with those of manufacturers and PSAPs. The reports will also assist the Commission's efforts to monitor Phase II developments and to take action, if necessary, to maintain the Phase II implementation schedule.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Managing Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06282 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Federal Advisory Committee Act; Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This document corrects a previous document published at in the Federal Register on February 23, 2015, to provide an explanation for why the Commission rescheduled a meeting.

    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 Nancy Murphy, [email protected], of the Media Bureau, (202) 418-1043.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of February 23, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015-03611, on page 9459 in the second and third columns, and page 9460, in the first column correct the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section to read:

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meeting will be held on February 23, 2015, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room of the Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-C305, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The DSTAC is a Federal Advisory Committee that will “identify, report, and recommend performance objectives, technical capabilities, and technical standards of a not unduly burdensome, uniform, and technology- and platform-neutral software-based downloadable security system.” On December 8, 2014, the FCC, pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, established the charter for the DSTAC. The meeting on February 23, 2015, will be the first meeting of the DSTAC. The Commission is required to publish notice of the rescheduled meeting at least 15 calendar days before the rescheduled meeting date absent exceptional circumstances; in this case, the Commission faced exceptional circumstances when it provided notice of the rescheduled meeting. As noted, the original meeting was cancelled due to the closure of the Government on February 17, 2015, the original meeting date. Section 106(d)(4) of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014, Public Law. 113-200, requires the Commission to hold the initial meeting by March 4, 2015. February 23, 2015 was the only date before that deadline when (i) the DSTAC Chair was available and (ii) the Commission had a room of appropriate size available. Moreover, section 106(d)(2) of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 requires the DSTAC to submit a report to the Commission by September 4, 2015. The committee's ability to meet that deadline would be significantly compromised if this initial meeting were further delayed. The Commission took steps to mitigate the harm of shortened notice of the meeting. As soon as possible on February 18, 2015, the Commission provided notice that the meeting was rescheduled on (i) the Commission's main Web site, (ii) the Web site for the DSTAC, and (iii) in the Federal Register. In addition, on February 18, 2015, Commission staff contacted the advisory committee members and other interested parties via email to inform them of the rescheduled meeting. For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the Commission had good cause for providing less than 15 calendar days of notice of the rescheduled meeting.

    At the meeting, the Committee will discuss (i) the scope of the report that it will deliver to the Commission, (ii) the ultimate goals of interested parties with respect to navigation device conditional access and content security, (iii) recommended working groups and the tasks for which they will be responsible, and (iv) any other topics related to the DSTAC's work that may arise. The Commission will provide audio and/or video coverage of the meeting over the Internet from the FCC's Web page at http://www.fcc.gov/live. The public may submit written comments before the meeting to Brendan Murray, DSTAC Designated Federal Officer, by email to [email protected] or by U.S. Postal Service Mail to 445 12th Street SW., Room 4-A726, Washington, DC 20554. Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to [email protected] or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty). Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. In addition, please include a way the FCC can contact you if it needs more information. Please allow at least five days' advance notice; last-minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06283 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [3060-XXXX] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 18, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Benish Shah, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact [email protected], (202) 418-7866.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

    Title: Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: New Collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; and/or State, local or tribal governments.

    Number of Respondents: 4,294 respondents; 28,134 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2-10 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping, reporting, and third-party disclosure requirements.

    Obligation to Respond: Voluntary and mandatory. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47. U.S.C. Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 10, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 140,656 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: N/A.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: None.

    Needs and Uses: Section 20.18(i)(2)(ii)(A) rule requires that, within three years of the effective date of rules, CMRS providers shall deliver to uncompensated barometric pressure data from any device capable of delivering such data to PSAPs. This requirement is necessary to ensure that PSAPs are receiving all location information possible to be used for dispatch. This requirement is also necessary to ensure that CMRS providers implement a vertical location solution in the event that the proposed “dispatchable location” solution does not function as intended by the three-year mark and beyond.

    Section 20.18(i)(2)(ii)(B) requires that the four nationwide providers submit to the Commission for review and approval a reasonable metric for z-axis (vertical) location accuracy no later than 3 years from the effective date of rules. The requirement is critical to ensure that the vertical location framework adopted in the Fourth Report and Order is effectively implemented.

    Section 20.18(i)(2)(iii) requires CMRS providers to certify compliance with the Commission's rules at various benchmarks throughout implementation of improved location accuracy. This requirement is necessary to ensure that CMRS providers remain “on track” to reach the goals that they themselves agreed to.

    Section 20.18(i)(3)(i) requires that within 12 months of the effective date, the four nationwide CMRS providers must establish the test bed described in the Fourth Report and Order, which will validate technologies intended for indoor location, The test bed is necessary for the compliance certification framework adopted in the Fourth Report and Order.

    Section 20.18(i)(3)(ii) requires that beginning 18 months from effective date of rules, nationwide CMRS providers providing service in any of the six Test Cities identified by ATIS (Atlanta, Denver/Front Range, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Manhattan Borough of New York City) must collect and report aggregate data on the location technologies used for live 911 calls. This reporting requirement is necessary to validate and verify the compliance certifications made by CMRS providers.

    Section 20.18(i)(4)(ii) requires that no later than 18 months from the effective date, each CMRS provider shall submit to the Commission a report on its progress toward implementing improved indoor location accuracy. Non-nationwide CMRS providers will have an additional 6 months to submit their progress reports. All CMRS providers shall provide an additional progress report no later than 36 months from the effective date of the adoption of this rule. The 36-month reports shall indicate what progress the provider has made consistent with its implementation plan.

    Section 20.18(i)(4)(iii) requires that prior to activation of the NEAD but no later than 18 months from the effective date of the adoption of this rule, the nationwide CMRS providers shall file with the Commission and request approval for a security and privacy plan for the administration and operation of the NEAD. This requirement is necessary to ensure that the four nationwide CMRS providers are building in privacy and security measures to the NEAD from its inception.

    Section 20.18(i)(4)(iv) requires that before use of the NEAD or any information contained therein, CMRS providers must certify that they will not use the NEAD or associated data for any non-911 purpose, except as otherwise required by law. This requirement is necessary to ensure the privacy and security of any personally identifiable information that may be collected by the NEAD.

    Section 20.18(j) requires CMRS providers to provide standardized confidence and uncertainty (C/U) data for all wireless 911 calls, whether from outdoor or indoor locations, on a per-call basis upon the request of a PSAP. This requirement will serve to make the use of C/U data easier for PSAPs

    Section 20.18(k) requires that CMRS providers must record information on all live 911 calls, including, but not limited to, the positioning source method used to provide a location fix associated with the call, as well as confidence and uncertainty data. This information must be made available to PSAPs upon request, as a measure to promote transparency and accountability for this set of rules.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06284 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-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 April 3, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. Oliver Pierce Smith, Neenah, Wisconsin; to retain voting shares of First Menasha Bancshares, Inc., Neenah, Wisconsin, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of First National Bank-Fox Valley, Neenah, Wisconsin.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 16, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06320 Filed 3-18-15; 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 13, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:

    1. Washington Savings, M.H.C., Effingham, Illinois, to become a mutual holding company through the re-organization of ownership of Washington Savings Bank, Effingham, Illinois, from mutual to stock form. Washington Savings will have its depositors convert their ownership into ownership in Washington Savings, M.H.C.

    In connection with this proposal, Washington Savings, M.H.C., will also acquire through merger, First Federal M.H.C., Mattoon, Illinois, and simultaneously merge the subsidiary savings association, First Federal Savings and Loan Association, with and into Washington Savings.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 16, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06321 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.) (HOLA), Regulation LL (12 CFR part 238), and Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a savings and loan holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a savings association and nonbanking companies owned by the savings and loan holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 13, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Equitable Financial Corp., Grand Island, Nebraska; proposes to become a savings and loan holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Equitable Bank, Grand Island, Nebraska. Upon the conversion of Equitable Financial MHC to stock form, Equitable Financial MHC and Equitable Financial Corp, the existing mid-tier holding company of Equitable Bank, will cease to exist, and Equitable Bank will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Equitable Financial Corp, a de novo company.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 16, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06319 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Granting of Request for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification Rules

    Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the Federal Register.

    The following transactions were granted early termination—on the dates indicated—of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. The listing for each transaction includes the transaction number and the parties to the transaction. The grants were made by the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Neither agency intends to take any action with respect to these proposed acquisitions during the applicable waiting period.

    Early Terminations Granted February 1, 2015 Thru February 27, 2015 02/02/2015 20150311 G Desmarais Family Residuary Trust; Blue Crest Holding S.A.; Desmarais Family Residuary Trust. 20150312 G Baron Albert Frere; Blue Crest Holding S.A.; Baron Albert Frere. 20150502 G Chai Trust Company, LLC; Par Petroleum Corporation; Chai Trust Company, LLC. 20150503 G Roche Holding Ltd., Trophos SA; Roche Holding Ltd. 20150507 G Lindsay Goldberg III, LP; Golden Tree Offshore Intermediate Fund, LP; Lindsay Goldberg III, LP. 20150509 G New Mountain Partners IV, LP.; DFS Holding Company, Inc.; New Mountain Partners IV, L.P. 20150512 G Callaway Golf Company, TopGolf International, Inc.; Callaway Golf Company. 20150514 G Manulife Financial Corporation; New York Life Insurance Company; Manulife Financial Corporation. 20150518 G Wendel SA; IPMorgan Chase & Co.; Wendel SA. 02/03/2015 20150425 G Riverbed Parent, LLC; Riverbed Technology, Inc.; Riverbed Parent, LLC. 20150447 G Blue Harbour Active Ownership Partners, L.P.; Akamai Technologies, Inc.; Blue Harbour Active Ownership Partners, L.P. 20150475 G Trian Partners, L.P.; E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company; Trian Partners, L.P. 20150486 G Trian Partners Strategic Investment Fund-A, L.P.; E.I. du Pont De Nemours and Company; Trian Partners Strategic Investment Fund-A, L.P. 20150513 G Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.; J. Paul Reddam; Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. 20150516 G ALLETE. Inc.; Excellere Capital Fund, L.P.; ALLETE, Inc. 20150524 G Roper Industries, Inc.; TA XI L.P.; Roper Industries, Inc. 02/04/2015 20150348 G Zoetis, Inc.; Abbott Laboratories; Zoetis, Inc. 20150522 G Tekrnira Pharmaceuticals Corporation; QVT Offshore Ltd.; Tekmira Pharmaceuticals Corporation. 20150523 G Tekmira Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Vivek Ramaswamy; Tekrnira Pharmaceuticals Corporation. 02/05/2015 20150326 G Oceaneering International, Inc.; Thomas S. Chance; Oceaneering International, Inc. 20150455 G Trident VI, L.P.; Sims Group LLC; Trident VI, L.P. 20150484 G Adventist Health System/West; Lodi Memorial Hospital Association, Inc.; Adventist Health System/West. 20150493 G ABRY Senior Equity IV, L.P.; Sandy Chau; ABRY Senior Equity IV, L.P. 20150495 G Littlejohn Fund V. L.P.; Michael Drusmsky; Littlejohn Fund V. L.P. 02/06/2015 20150527 G George M. Yates; Matador Resources Company; George M. Yates. 20150528 G Huron Consulting Group Inc.; JMI Equity Fund VII. L.P.; Huron Consulting Group Inc. 20150529 G Clearlake Capital Partners III, LP; Francisco Partners, L.P.; Clearlake Capital Partners III, LP. 20150534 G Kinder Morgan. Inc.; Mr. Harold Hamm; Kinder Morgan, Inc. 20150538 G Mr. Peter Flint; Zebra Holdco, Inc.; Mr Peter Flint. 20150553 G Mr. Richard Barton; Zebra Holdco, Inc.; Mr. Richard Barton. 20150554 G Mr. Lloyd Frink; Zebra Holdco, Inc.; Mr. Lloyd Frink. 02/09/2015 20150545 G Thoma Bravo Fund XI, L.P.; PowerPlan Holdings, Inc.; Thoma Bravo Fund XI, L.P. 20150548 G Insight Holdings (DE), Inc.; Research Now Group, Inc.; Insight Holdings (DE), Inc. 02/10/2015 20150547 G ATOS SE.; Xerox Corporation; ATOS SE. 02/11/2015 20150511 G AstraZeneca PLC; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; AstraZeneca PLC. 20150532 G Mohawk Industries, Inc.; Stichting Adininistratiekantoor Patek; Mohawk Industries, Inc. 20150533 G Stichting Administratiekantoor Patek; Mohawk Industries, Inc.; Stichting Administratiekantoor Patek. 02/12/2015 20150536 G Cigna Corporation; QualCare Alliance Networks, Inc.; Cigna Corporation. 02/13/2015 20150549 G Madison Dearborn Capital Pamters VI-A, L.P.; Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.; Madison Dearborn Capital Pamters VI-A, L.P. 02/18/2015 20150551 G ICON plc; Vestar Capital Partners V. L.P.; ICON plc. 20150555 G Pacific Ethanol, Inc.; Aventine Renewable Enemy Holdings, Inc.; Pacific Ethanol, Inc. 20150559 G Ares Corporate Opportunities Fund IV, L.P.; ATD Corporation; Ares Corporate Opportunities Fund IV, L.P. 20150562 G Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company, Inc.; JSP Corporation; Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company, Inc. 20150567 G Berkshire Hathaway Inc.; Southwest Opportunity Partners, L.P.; Berkshire Hathaway Inc. 20150568 G Gildan Activewear Inc.; Barry T. Chouinard; Gildan Activewear Inc. 20150569 G Aquiline Financial Services Fund II L.P.; Senator Sidecar Master Fund LP; Aquiline Financial Services Fund II L.P. 20150571 G BATS Global Markets, Inc.; KCG Holdings, Inc.; BATS Global Markets, Inc. 20150572 G Daniel J. McKenna, III; Frederick E. Hitchcock, Jr.; Daniel J. McKenna, III. 20150573 G Harman International Industries, Incorporated; Symphony Teleca Corporation; Hannan International Industries, Incorporated. 20150574 G Snow Phipps II AIV, L.P.; Paul Milstein 1998 Continuation Trust C; Snow Phipps II AIV, L.P. 20150575 G Centene Corporation; Agate Resources, Inc.; Centene Corporation. 20150576 G Hahn & Co. Auto Holdings Co., Ltd.; Visteon Corporation; Hahn & Co. Auto Holdings Co., Ltd.. 20150584 G Bain Capital Fund XI, L.P.; TI Fluid Systems Limited; Bain Capital Fund XI, L.P. 20150589 G King Digital Entertainment plc; Madrona Venture Fund III, L.P.; King Digital Entertainment plc. 20150592 G Canon Inc.; Axis AB; Canon Inc. 02/19/2015 20150487 G Zayo Group Holdings, Inc.; Great Hill Equity Partners III, L.P.; Zayo Group Holdings, Inc. 20150497 Y Navient Corporation; ORG Gila Investment, LP; Navient Corporation. 20150546 G Dakota Holdings, LLC; Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company; Dakota Holdings, LLC. 02/24/2015 20150537 G GUO GUANGCHANG; Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc.; GUO GUANGCHANG. 20150564 G William H. Gates, III; Sika AG; William H. Gates, III. 20150583 G The Chefs' Warehouse, Inc.; T.J. Foodservice Co., Inc.; The Chefs' Warehouse, Inc. 20150593 G Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P.; New Gulf Resources, LLC; Enbridge Energy Partners, L P. 20150595 G XL Group PLC; Catlin Group Limited; XL Group PLC. 20150596 G Audax Private Equity Fund IV, LP; Marwit Capital Partners II, LP; Audax Private Equity, Fund IV, LP. 20150598 G Macy's Inc.; Stichting Administratiekantoor Westend; Macy's Inc. 20150599 G Crestview Partners III, L.P.; Huizenga Automation Group, LLC; Crestview Partners III, L.P. 20150600 G Energy Transfer Equity LP; Regency Energy Partners LP; Energy Transfer Equity LP. 20150602 G Tronox Limited; FMC Corporation; Tronox Limited. 20150603 G Blue Holdings I, L.P.; The J.M. Smucker Company; Blue Holdings I, L.P. 20150604 G The J.M. Smucker Company; Blue Holdings I, L.P.; The J.M. Smucker Company. 20150606 G Macquarie Infrastructure Company LLC; ArcLight Energy Partners Fund III, L.P.; Macquarie Infrastructure Company LLC. 20150610 G Devon Energy Corporation; Coronado Midstream Holdings LLC; Devon Energy Corporation. 02/26/2015 20150611 G Insight Venture Partners IX, L.P.; E2open, Inc.; Insight Venture Partners IX, L.P. 20150615 G Cardinal Health, Inc.; Saji T. Daniel; Cardinal Health, Inc. 20150616 G AstraZeneca plc; Actavis plc; AstraZeneca plc. 20150619 G Infosys Limited; Panaya, Inc.; Infosys Limited. 20150620 G MaxLinear, Inc.; Entropic Communications, Inc.; MaxLinear, Inc. 02/27/2015 20150543 G Roper Industries, Inc.; Data Innovations LLC; Roper Industries, Inc. 20150544 G Duke Energy Corporation; Calpine Corporation; Duke Energy Corporation. 20150563 G Emesto Silvio Maurizio Bertarelli; SimpliVity Corporation; Ernesto Silvio Maurizio Bertarelli. 20150617 G TE Connectivity Ltd.; TechDevice Holdings LLC; TE Connectivity Ltd.. 20150621 G Morgan Stanley Infrastnicture Partners II, LP; Eureka Hunter Holdings, LLC; Morgan Stanley Infrastructure Partners II, LP. 20150622 G Carl C. Icahn; Uni-Select Inc.; Carl C. Icahn. 20150623 G Delta Electronics, Inc.; Eltek ASA; Delta Electronics, Inc. 20150630 G Bertram Growth Capital II, L.P.; Clams Glassboards LLC; Bertram Growth Capital II, L.P. 20150631 G Cortec Group Fund V, L.P.; Kent P. Dauten; Cortec Group Fund V, L.P. 20150646 G Catalyst Fund Limited Partnership IV; Mehrdad Memarpouri; Catalyst Fund Limited Partnership IV. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Renee Chapman, Contact Representative, or Theresa Kingsberry, Legal Assistant, Federal Trade Commission, Premerger Notification Office, Bureau of Competition, Room CC-5301, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 326-3100.

    By Direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05919 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the FTC is seeking public comments on its request to OMB to extend for three years the current PRA clearances for information collection requirements contained in three product labeling rules enforced by the Commission. Those clearances expire on March 31, 2015.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by April 20, 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 “Apparel Rules: FTC File No. P074201” on your comment, and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/apparelrulespra2 by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, mail or deliver 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:

    Requests for copies of the collection of information and supporting documentation should be addressed to Robert M. Frisby, 202-326-2098, or Lemuel Dowdy, 202-326-2981, Attorneys, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Room CC-9528, Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Rules and regulations under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 (“Wool Rules”), 16 CFR part 300.

    OMB Control Number: 3084-0100.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Abstract: The Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 (“Wool Act”) 1 prohibits the misbranding of wool products. The Wool Rules establish disclosure requirements that assist consumers in making informed purchasing decisions and recordkeeping requirements that assist the Commission in enforcing the Rules.

    1 15 U.S.C. 68 et seq.

    On January 9, 2015, the Commission sought comment on the information collection requirements in the Wool Rules. 80 FR 1411. No comments were received. As required by OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment.

    Likely Respondents: Manufacturers, importers, processors and marketers of wool products.

    Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure; recordkeeping requirement.

    Estimated annual hours burden: 1,888,000 hours (160,000 recordkeeping hours + 1,720,000 disclosure hours).

    Recordkeeping: 160,000 hours [4,000 wool firms incur an average 40 hours per firm].

    Disclosure: 1,720,000 hours [240,000 hours for determining label content + 480,000 hours to draft and order labels + 1,000,000 hours to attach labels].

    Estimated annual cost burden: $22,620,000 (solely relating to labor costs).

    Title: Rules and regulations under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (“Textile Rules”), 16 CFR part 303.

    OMB Control Number: 3084-0101.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Abstract: The Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (“Textile Act”) 2 prohibits the misbranding and false advertising of textile fiber products. The Textile Rules establish disclosure requirements that assist consumers in making informed purchasing decisions, and recordkeeping requirements that assist the Commission in enforcing the Rules. The Rules also contain a petition procedure for requesting the establishment of generic names for textile fibers.

    2 15 U.S.C. 70 et seq.

    On January 9, 2015, the Commission sought comment on the information collection requirements in the Textile Rules. 80 FR 1411. No comments were received. As required by OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment.

    Likely Respondents: Manufacturers, importers, processors and marketers of textile fiber products.

    Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure; recordkeeping requirement.

    Estimated annual hours burden: 39,186,772 hours (1,237,015 recordkeeping hours + 37,949,757 disclosure hours).

    Recordkeeping: 1,237,015 hours (approximately 19,031 textile firms incur average burden of 65 hours per firm)

    Disclosure: 37,949,757 hours (1,471,730 hours to determine label content + 1,811,360 hours to draft and order labels + 34,666,667 hours to attach labels)

    Estimated annual cost burden: $280,754,000, rounded to the nearest thousand (solely relating to labor costs).

    Title: The Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods As Amended (“Care Labeling Rule”), 16 CFR 423.

    OMB Control Number: 3084-0103.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Abstract: The Care Labeling Rule requires manufacturers and importers to attach a permanent care label to all covered textile clothing in order to assist consumers in making purchase decisions and in determining what method to use to clean their apparel. Also, manufacturers and importers of piece goods used to make textile clothing must provide the same care information on the end of each bolt or roll of fabric.

    On January 9, 2015, the Commission sought comment on the information collection requirements in the Care Labeling Rule. 80 FR 1411. No comments were received. As required by OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment.

    Estimated annual hours burden: 34,742,227 hours (solely relating to disclosure 3 ) (derived from 2,264,200 hours to determine care instructions + 1,811,360 hours to draft and order labels + 30,666,667 hours to attach labels).

    3 The Care Labeling Rule imposes no specific recordkeeping requirements. Although the Rule requires manufacturers and importers to have reliable evidence to support the recommended care instructions, companies in some circumstances can rely on current technical literature or past experience.

    Likely Respondents: Manufacturers or importers of textile apparel.

    Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure.

    Estimated Annual Cost Burden: $258,329,000, rounded to the nearest thousand (solely relating to labor costs).

    Request for Comments

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 20, 2015. Write “Apparel Rules: FTC File No. P074201” 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, such as 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 are required to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comment online, or to send it to the Commission by courier or overnight service. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/apparelrulespra2, by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

    If you file your comment on paper, write “Apparel Rules: FTC File No. P074201” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver 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 20, 2015. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm.

    Comments on the information collection requirements subject to review under the PRA should also be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, address comments 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) 395-5167.

    David C. Shonka, Principal Deputy General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06352 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration For Children And Families [CFDA Number 93.576] Announcement of the Award of an Emergency Single-Source Grant to the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants in Arlington, VA AGENCY:

    Office of Refugee Resettlement, ACF, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of the award of an emergency single-source grant to the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants in Arlington, VA.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) announces the award of an emergency single-source grant in the amount of $804,075 to the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) in Arlington, VA, to support resettlement services to Iranian refugee parolees.

    DATES:

    Funds will support activities from December 15, 2014 through December 14, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kenneth Tota, Acting Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement, 901 D Street SW., Washington, DC 20047. Telephone: 202-401-4858. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Award funds will provide resettlement services to approximately 100 Iranian individuals currently residing in a refugee camp in Iraq. USCRI will provide services to this refugee parolee population including, but not limited to: Initial reception, housing, employment, enhanced case management, staffing, interpreter services, and counseling. This emergency grant will support the provision of these much needed services to ensure these parolees are afforded a successful path to self-sufficiency.

    Statutory Authority:

    Section 412(c)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1522(c)(1)(A)).

    Christopher Beach, Senior Grants Policy Specialist, Office of Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06311 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0239] Assessing the Center of Drug Evaluation and Research's Safety-Related Regulatory Science Needs and Identifying Priorities; Report; Availability; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a report entitled “Assessing CDER's Drug Safety-Related Regulatory Science Needs and Identifying Priorities.” This report identifies drug safety-related regulatory science needs and priorities related to the mission of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) that would benefit from external collaborations and resources. FDA hopes to foster collaborations with external partners and stakeholders to help address these needs and priorities. This notice asks stakeholders conducting research related to these needs to describe that research and indicate their interest in collaborating with FDA to address safety-related research priorities.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on the report at any time, to ensure that FDA considers your comments on this report, submit either electronic or written comments on the report by May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of this report to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the report.

    Submit electronic comments on the report to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ruth Barratt, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 21, Rm. 4540, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2600.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Since publication of the 2011 “Identifying CDER's Science and Research Needs” report, FDA has been engaged in efforts to further assess and prioritize the needs articulated therein. As part of these efforts, CDER's Safety Research Interest Group (SRIG), a subcommittee of the Science Prioritization and Review Committee, assessed CDER's overall drug safety-related regulatory science needs in view of FDA's ongoing research efforts and highlighted areas that would benefit from additional resources and collaboration.

    The SRIG identified the following seven overall needs for drug safety-related regulatory science:

    1. Improve access to postmarket data sources and explore the feasibility of their use in safety signal analyses

    2. Improve risk assessment and management strategies to reinforce the safe use of drugs

    3. Evaluate the effectiveness of risk communications of drug safety information to health care providers and the public

    4. Improve product quality and design, manufacturing processes, and product performance relating to safety

    5. Develop and improve predictive models of safety in humans, including nonclinical biomarkers

    6. Improve clinical trial statistical analyses for safety, including benefit-risk assessment

    7. Investigate clinical biomarkers of safety, including standards for qualification.

    Particular priorities within the seven overall needs requiring further resources and outside participation were also identified. FDA seeks to stimulate collaborations with external partners and stakeholders to address these needs by asking them to: (1) Submit descriptions of their ongoing research and initiatives related to the seven overall needs, especially the identified priorities, and (2) indicate their interest in working with FDA to address these needs. Outside parties are being asked to submit comments to the docket and email address [email protected]

    II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding the report to http://www.regulations.gov and email address [email protected], or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the report at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: March 13, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06288 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIDDK Ancillary R01 Telephone Review SEP.

    Date: April 3, 2015

    Time: 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Xiaodu Guo, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes Of Health, Room 761, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-4719, [email protected]

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Collaborative Interdisciplinary Team Science in Diabetes and Obesity (R24).

    Date: April 6, 2015.

    Time: 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Ann A. Jerkins, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 759, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, 301-594-2242, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 13, 2015. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06266 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, March 31, 2015, 04:00 p.m. to April 01, 2015, 05:00 p.m., Churchill Hotel, 1914 Connecticut Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20009 which was published in the Federal Register on March 09, 2015, 80 FR 12494.

    The meeting is being amended to reflect location change. The new meeting location is the Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, Bethesda, MD 20814. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: March 13, 2015. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06270 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Research on Women's Health.

    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: Advisory Committee on Research on Women's Health.

    Date: April 10, 2014.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: The Committee serves to advise and make recommendations to the Director, Office of Research on Women's Health (ORWH) on a broad range of topics including, the current scope of research on women's health and the influence of sex and gender on human health, efforts to understand the issues related to women in biomedical careers and their needs, and the current status of inclusion of women in clinical trials research.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 35, Room 620/630, 35 Convent Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Susan E Maier, Ph.D., NIH/OD, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Room 400, Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-435-1573, [email protected].

    Any interested person may file written comments for the public record by submitting their comments to the following email address [email protected] Written comments for the public record must not exceed two single-spaced, typed pages, using a 12-point typeface and 1 inch margins; it is preferred that the document be prepared in the MS Word® format. Only testimony submitted to this Web site and received in advance of the meeting are part of the official meeting record.

    Supplementary Information: A draft agenda for this meeting is posted at http://orwh.od.nih.gov/about/acrwh/index.asp. The meeting will be live-video streamed at http://videocast.nih.gov/.

    Individuals who plan to attend the meeting in person should contact Faith Zeff at [email protected] Members of the media will also need to register. In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.14, Intramural Research Training Award; 93.22, Clinical Research Loan Repayment Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds; 93.232, Loan Repayment Program for Research Generally; 93.39, Academic Research Enhancement Award; 93.936, NIH Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Loan Repayment Program; 93.187, Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 13, 2015. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06267 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions Received AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is publishing this notice of petitions received under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the Program), as required by Section 2112(b)(2) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. While the Secretary of Health and Human Services is named as the respondent in all proceedings brought by the filing of petitions for compensation under the Program, the United States Court of Federal Claims is charged by statute with responsibility for considering and acting upon the petitions.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information about requirements for filing petitions, and the Program in general, contact the Clerk, United States Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Place NW., Washington, DC 20005, (202) 357-6400. For information on HRSA's role in the Program, contact the Director, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11C-26, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-6593.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of Title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10 et seq., provides that those seeking compensation are to file a petition with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and to serve a copy of the petition on the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who is named as the respondent in each proceeding. The Secretary has delegated this responsibility under the Program to HRSA. The Court is directed by statute to appoint special masters who take evidence, conduct hearings as appropriate, and make initial decisions as to eligibility for, and amount of, compensation.

    A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the Table) set forth at Section 2114 of the PHS Act or as set forth at 42 CFR 100.3, as applicable. This Table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions that may lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the Table and for conditions that are manifested outside the time periods specified in the Table, but only if the petitioner shows that the condition was caused by one of the listed vaccines.

    Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-12(b)(2), requires that “[w]ithin 30 days after the Secretary receives service of any petition filed under section 2111 the Secretary shall publish notice of such petition in the Federal Register.” Set forth below is a list of petitions received by HRSA on February 1, 2015, through February 28, 2015. This list provides the name of petitioner, city and state of vaccination (if unknown then city and state of person or attorney filing claim), and case number. In cases where the Court has redacted the name of a petitioner and/or the case number, the list reflects such redaction.

    Section 2112(b)(2) also provides that the special master “shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant, written information” relating to the following:

    1. The existence of evidence “that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the illness, disability, injury, condition, or death described in the petition is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine described in the petition,” and

    2. Any allegation in a petition that the petitioner either:

    a. “Sustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table but which was caused by” one of the vaccines referred to in the Table, or

    b. “Sustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not occur within the time period set forth in the Table but which was caused by a vaccine” referred to in the Table.

    In accordance with Section 2112(b)(2), all interested persons may submit written information relevant to the issues described above in the case of the petitions listed below. Any person choosing to do so should file an original and three (3) copies of the information with the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims at the address listed above (under the heading “For Further Information Contact”), with a copy to HRSA addressed to Director, Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Healthcare Systems Bureau, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11C-26, Rockville, MD 20857. The Court's caption (Petitioner's Name v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) and the docket number assigned to the petition should be used as the caption for the written submission. Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, related to paperwork reduction, does not apply to information required for purposes of carrying out the Program.

    Dated: March 13, 2015. Mary K. Wakefield, Administrator. List of Petitions Filed 1. Melissa Kirdzik on behalf of John Henry Watts, IV, Newport, Rhode Island, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0098V 2. Maria Echevarria on behalf of D.E., Deceased, Piermont, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0100V 3. Susan Marshall on behalf of Antron Jarvar Thompson, Decatur, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0102V 4. James Riley and Brandy Riley on behalf of E.R., Huntington, West Virginia, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0104V 5. Shannon Apodaca, Alamosa, Colorado, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0106V 6. Aaron Prior, Lincoln, Nebraska, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0107V 7. David Thomas, Brookfield, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0108V 8. James Kois, Latham, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0109V 9. Michael Perkins, Elgin, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0112V 10. Shanelle Mattus-Lang on behalf of D.J.W., Santa Clara, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0113V 11. Michael D. Hudson, Huntsville, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0114V 12. Adele Phillips, Syracuse, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0115V 13. Amanda Seiders and Adam Seiders on behalf of H.S., Cypress, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0117V 14. Carrie M. Broschart on behalf of Amelia F. Beaver, Danville, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0118V 15. Terra Schaller, Portland, Oregon, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0120V 16. Christine Torres on behalf of L.T., Rochester, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0124V 17. Kristie Roby, Sumter, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0125V 18. Joanne Jennings, Covington, Louisiana, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0131V 19. Madeline Moorman, Overland Park, Kansas, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0132V 20. Amy Lyn Vakalis, Baraboo, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0134V 21. Judith Jetson, Weaverville, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0138V 22. Julie Reiling on behalf of G.R., Phoenix, Arizona, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0139V 23. Virginia Ives, Portland, Oregon, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0140V 24 Bridgette Wiley, Conyers, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0141V 25. Paulette Cummins, Beverly Hills, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0142V 26. Katelyn Garner, Baraboo, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0143V 27. Timothy F. Grieb, Seattle, Washington, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0144V 28. Kimberly Norwood and Clifford Norwood on behalf of Cassidi Norwood, Atlanta, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0145V 29. Dorothy Gray, Phoenix, Arizona, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0146V 30. Francine Mack, Cheyenne, Wyoming, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0149V 31. Ronald Watkins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0150V 32. Danielle Groom, Fairview Heights, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0157V 33. Hailey Davis and Chad Davis on behalf of R.D., Cordele, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0159V 34. Adan Gomez and Raquel Ayon on behalf of Joel Gomez, Deceased, Rosemead, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0160V 35. Demarco Johnson and Lateasha Johnson on behalf of D.J., Hendersonville, Tennessee, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0164V 36. Jessica Crefasi, Mandeville, Louisiana, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0166V 37. Ova Franklin Kelly, Orlando, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0167V 38. Mamotabo Matshela, Chicago, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0168V 39. Jennifer L. Check, Memphis, Tennessee, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0169V 40. Thaddee Michaud, Rochester, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0170V 41. Tyler Steen, Cedar Falls, Iowa, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0176V 42. Britany Greek on behalf of C.T.G., Lake City, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0178V 43. Francisco Tamez and Luz Tamez on behalf of E.T., Las Cruces, New Mexico, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0181V 44. Victor Fullerton, Cadillac, Michigan, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0182V 45. Lynette Brayboy on behalf of L.B., Baraboo, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0183V 46. Mary E. Forde, Columbus, Ohio, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0185V 47. Jered R. Anderson, Faribault, Minnesota, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0187V
    [FR Doc. 2015-06279 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes; Tribal Management Grant Program

    Announcement Type: New and Competing Continuation.

    Funding Announcement Number: HHS-2015-IHS-TMD-0001.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 93.228.

    Key Dates

    Application Deadline Date: June 3, 2015.

    Review Date: June 22-26, 2015.

    Earliest Anticipated Start Date: September 1, 2015.

    Signed Tribal Resolutions Due Date: June 19, 2015.

    Proof of Non-Profit Status Due Date: June 3, 2015.

    I. Funding Opportunity Description Statutory Authority

    The Indian Health Service (IHS) is accepting competitive grant applications for the Tribal Management Grant (TMG) program. This program is authorized under 25 U.S.C. 450h(b)(2) and 25 U.S.C. 450h(e) of the Indian Health Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), Public Law (Pub. L.) 93-638, as amended. This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) under 93.228.

    Background

    The TMG Program is a competitive grant program that is capacity building and developmental in nature and has been available for Federally-recognized Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations (T/TO) since shortly after the passage of the ISDEAA in 1975. It was established to assist T/TO to assume all or part of existing IHS programs, functions, services, and activities (PFSA) and further develop and improve their health management capability. The TMG Program provides competitive grants to T/TO to establish goals and performance measures for current health programs; assess current management capacity to determine if new components are appropriate; analyze programs to determine if T/TO management is practicable; and develop infrastructure systems to manage or organize PFSA.

    Purpose

    The purpose of this IHS grant announcement is to announce the availability of the TMG Program to enhance and develop health management infrastructure and assist T/TO in assuming all or part of existing IHS PSFA through a Title I contract and assist established Title I contractors and Title V compactors to further develop and improve their management capability. In addition, TMGs are available to T/TO under the authority of 25 U.S.C. 450h(e) for: (1) Obtaining technical assistance from providers designated by the T/TO (including T/TO that operate mature contracts) for the purposes of program planning and evaluation, including the development of any management systems necessary for contract management and the development of cost allocation plans for indirect cost rates; and (2) planning, designing, monitoring, and evaluation of Federal programs serving the T/TO, including Federal administrative functions.

    II. Award Information Type of Award

    Grant.

    Estimated Funds Available

    The total amount of funding identified for the current fiscal year (FY) 2015 is approximately $2,412,000. Individual award amounts are anticipated to be between $50,000 and $100,000. The amount of funding available for competing and continuation awards issued under this announcement is subject to the availability of appropriations and budgetary priorities of the Agency. The IHS is under no obligation to make awards that are selected for funding under this announcement.

    Anticipated Number of Awards

    Approximately 16-18 awards will be issued under this program announcement.

    Project Period

    The project periods vary based on the project type selected. Project periods could run from one, two, or three years and will run consecutively from the earliest anticipated start date of September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2016 for one year projects; September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2017 for two year projects; and September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2018 for three year projects. Please refer to “Eligible TMG Project Types, Maximum Funding Levels and Project Periods” below for additional details. State the number of years for the project period and include the exact dates.

    III. Eligibility Information 1. Eligibility

    Eligible Applicants: “Indian Tribes” and “Tribal organizations” (T/TO) as defined by the ISDEAA are eligible to apply for the TMG Program. The definitions for each entity type are outlined below. Only one application per T/TO is allowed.

    Definitions: “Indian Tribe” means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688) [43 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.], which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians. 25 U.S.C. § 450b(e).

    “Tribal organization” means the recognized governing body of any Indian tribe; any legally established organization of Indians which is controlled, sanctioned, or chartered by such governing body or which is democratically elected by the adult members of the Indian community to be served by such organization and which includes the maximum participation of Indians in all phases of its activities. 25 U.S.C. § 450b(l).

    Tribal organizations must provide proof of non-profit status.

    Eligible TMG Project Types, Maximum Funding Levels and Project Periods: The TMG Program consists of four project types: (1) Feasibility study; (2) planning; (3) evaluation study; and (4) health management structure. Applicants may submit applications for one project type only. Applicants must state the project type selected. Applications that address more than one project type will be considered ineligible. The maximum funding levels noted include both direct and indirect costs. Applicant budgets may not exceed the maximum funding level or project period identified for a project type. Applicants whose budget or project period exceed the maximum funding level or project period will be deemed ineligible and will not be reviewed. Please refer to Section IV.5, “Funding Restrictions” for further information regarding ineligible project activities.

    1. FEASIBILITY STUDY (Maximum funding/project period: $70,000/12 months)

    The Feasibility Study must include a study of a specific IHS program or segment of a program to determine if Tribal management of the program is possible. The study shall present the planned approach, training, and resources required to assume Tribal management of the program. The study must include the following four components:

    • Health needs and health care services assessments that identify existing health care services and delivery systems, program divisibility issues, health status indicators, unmet needs, volume projections, and demand analysis.

    • Management analysis of existing management structures, proposed management structures, implementation plans and requirements, and personnel staffing requirements and recruitment barriers.

    • Financial analysis of historical trends data, financial projections and new resource requirements for program management costs and analysis of potential revenues from Federal/non-Federal sources.

    • Decision statement/report that incorporates findings, conclusions and recommendations; the presentation of the study and recommendations to the Tribal governing body for determination regarding whether Tribal assumption of program(s) is desirable or warranted.

    2. PLANNING (Maximum funding/project period: $50,000/12 months)

    Planning projects entail a collection of data to establish goals and performance measures for the operation of current health programs or anticipated PFSA under a Title I contract. Planning projects will specify the design of health programs and the management systems (including appropriate policies and procedures) to accomplish the health priorities of the T/TO. For example, planning projects could include the development of a Tribal Specific Health Plan or a Strategic Health Plan, etc. Please note that updated Healthy People information and Healthy People 2020 objectives are available in electronic format at the following Web site: http://www.health.gov/healthypeople/publications. The Public Health Service (PHS) encourages applicants submitting strategic health plans to address specific objectives of Healthy People 2020.

    3. EVALUATION STUDY (Maximum funding/project period: $50,000/12 months)

    The Evaluation Study must include a systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of data for the purpose of determining the value of a program. The extent of the evaluation study could relate to the goals and objectives, policies and procedures, or programs regarding targeted groups. The evaluation study could also be used to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of a Tribal program operation (i.e., direct services, financial management, personnel, data collection and analysis, third-party billing, etc.), as well as to determine the appropriateness of new components of a Tribal program operation that will assist Tribal efforts to improve their health care delivery systems.

    4. HEALTH MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE (Average funding/project period: $100,000/12 months; maximum funding/project period: $300,000/36 months)

    The first year maximum funding level is limited to $150,000 for multi-year projects. The Health Management Structure component allows for implementation of systems to manage or organize PFSA. Management structures include health department organizations, health boards, and financial management systems, including systems for accounting, personnel, third-party billing, medical records, management information systems, etc. This includes the design, improvement, and correction of management systems that address weaknesses identified through quality control measures, internal control reviews, and audit report findings under required financial audits and ISDEAA requirements.

    For the minimum standards for the management systems used by Indian T/TO when carrying out self-determination contracts, please see 25 CFR part 900, Contracts Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Subpart F—“Standards for Tribal or Tribal Organization Management Systems,” §§ 900.35-900.60. For operational provisions applicable to carrying out Self-Governance compacts, please see 42 CFR part 137, Tribal Self-Governance, Subpart I,—“Operational Provisions” §§ 137.160-137.220.

    Please see Section IV “Application and Submission Information” for information on how to obtain a copy of the TMG application package.

    To be eligible for this “New/Competing Continuation Announcement,” an applicant must be one of the following as defined by 25 U.S.C. 450b:

    i. An Indian Tribe, as defined by 25 U.S.C. 450b(e); or

    ii. A Tribal organization, as defined by 25 U.S.C. 450b(l).

    Note:

    Please refer to Section IV.2 (Application and Submission Information/Subsection 2, Content and Form of Application Submission) for additional proof of applicant status documents required such as Tribal resolutions, proof of non-profit status, etc.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching

    The IHS does not require matching funds or cost sharing for grants or cooperative agreements.

    3. Other Requirements

    If application budgets exceed the highest dollar amount outlined under the “Estimated Funds Available” section within this funding announcement, the application will be considered ineligible and will not be reviewed for further consideration. If deemed ineligible, IHS will not return the application. The applicant will be notified by email by the Division of Grants Management (DGM) of this decision.

    The following documentation is required:

    Tribal Resolution

    A. Signed Tribal Resolution—A signed Tribal resolution of the Indian Tribes served by the project must accompany the electronic application submission. An Indian Tribe or Tribal organization that is proposing a project affecting another Indian Tribe must include resolutions from all affected Tribes to be served. Applications by Tribal organizations will not require a specific Tribal resolution if the current Tribal resolution(s) under which they operate would encompass the proposed grant activities.

    Draft Tribal resolutions are acceptable in lieu of an official signed resolution and must be submitted along with the electronic application submission prior to the official application deadline date or prior to the start of the Objective Review Committee (ORC) date. However, an official signed Tribal resolution must be received by the DGM prior to the beginning of the Objective Review. If an official signed resolution is not received by the Review Date listed under the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement, the application will be considered incomplete and ineligible.

    B. The official signed resolution can be mailed to the DGM, Attn: Mr. Pallop Chareonvootitam, Grants Management Specialist (GMS), 801 Thompson Avenue, TMP Suite 360, Rockville, MD 20852. Applicants submitting Tribal resolutions after or aside from the required online electronic application submission must ensure that the information is received by the IHS/DGM. It is highly recommended that the documentation be sent by a delivery method that includes delivery confirmation and tracking. Please contact Mr. Pallop Chareonvootitam, GMS, by telephone at (301) 443-5204 prior to the review date regarding submission questions.

    C. Tribal organizations applying for technical assistance and/or training grants must submit documentation that the Tribal organization is applying upon the request of the Indian Tribe/Tribes it intends to serve.

    D. Documentation for Priority I participation requires a copy of the Federal Register notice or letter from the Bureau of Indian Affairs verifying establishment of Federally-recognized Tribal status within the last five years. The date on the documentation must reflect that Federal recognition was received during or after March 2010.

    E. Documentation for Priority II participation requires a copy of the most current transmittal letter and Attachment A from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Inspector General (OIG), National External Audit Review Center (NEAR). See “FUNDING PRIORITIES” below for more information. If an applicant is unable to locate a copy of the most recent transmittal letter or needs assistance with audit issues, information or technical assistance may be obtained by contacting the IHS, Office of Finance and Accounting, Division of Audit at (301) 443-1270, or the NEAR help line at (800) 732-0679 or (816) 426-7720. Federally-recognized Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations not subject to Single Audit Act requirements must provide a financial statement identifying the Federal dollars in the footnotes. The financial statement must also identify specific weaknesses/recommendations that will be addressed in the TMG proposal and that are related to 25 CFR part 900, subpart F—“Standards for Tribal and Tribal Organization Management Systems.”

    F. Documentation of Consortium participation—If an Indian Tribe submitting an application is a member of an eligible intertribal consortium, the Tribe must:

    —Identify the consortium. —Indicate if the consortium intends to submit a TMG application. —Demonstrate that the Tribe's application does not duplicate or overlap any objectives of the consortium's application. —Identify all consortium member Tribes. —Identify if any of the member Tribes intend to submit a TMG application of their own. —Demonstrate that the consortium's application does not duplicate or overlap any objectives of the other consortium members who may be submitting their own TMG application.

    FUNDING PRIORITIES: The IHS has established the following funding priorities for TMG awards:

    • PRIORITY I—Any Indian Tribe that has received Federal recognition (including restored, funded, or unfunded) within the past five years, specifically received during or after March 2009, will be considered Priority I.

    • PRIORITY II—Federally-recognized Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations submitting a competing continuation application or a new application for the sole purpose of addressing audit material weaknesses will be considered Priority II.

    Priority II participation is only applicable to the Health Management Structure project type. For more information, see “Eligible TMG Project Types, Maximum Funding Levels and Project Periods” in Section II.

    • PRIORITY III—Eligible Direct Service and Title I Federally-recognized Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations submitting a competing continuation application or a new application will be considered Priority III.

    • PRIORITY IV—Eligible Title V Self Governance Federally-recognized Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations submitting a competing continuation or a new application will be considered Priority IV.

    The funding of approved Priority I applicants will occur before the funding of approved Priority II applicants. Priority II applicants will be funded before approved Priority III applicants. Priority III applicants will be funded before Priority IV applicants. Funds will be distributed until depleted.

    The following definitions are applicable to the PRIORITY II category:

    Audit finding means deficiencies which the auditor is required by 45 CFR 75.516, to report in the schedule of findings and questioned costs.

    Material weakness—“Statements on Auditing Standards 115” defines material weakness as a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity's financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis.

    Significant deficiency—Statements on Auditing Standards 115 defines significant deficiency as a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

    The audit findings are identified in Attachment A of the transmittal letter received from the HHS/OIG/NEAR. Please identify the material weaknesses to be addressed by underlining the item(s) listed on the Attachment A.

    Federally-recognized Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations not subject to Single Audit Act requirements must provide a financial statement identifying the Federal dollars received in the footnotes. The financial statement should also identify specific weaknesses/recommendations that will be addressed in the TMG proposal and that are related to 25 CFR part 900, subpart F—“Standards for Tribal and Tribal Organization Management Systems.”

    Proof of Non-Profit Status

    Organizations claiming non-profit status must submit proof. A copy of the 501(c)(3) Certificate must be received with the application submission by the Application Deadline Date listed under the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.

    An applicant submitting any of the above additional documentation after the initial application submission due date is required to ensure the information was received by the IHS by obtaining documentation confirming delivery (i.e. FedEx tracking, postal return receipt, etc.).

    IV. Application and Submission Information 1. Obtaining Application Materials

    The application package and detailed instructions for this announcement can be found at http://www.Grants.gov or https://www.ihs.gov/dgm/index.cfm?module=dsp_dgm_funding

    Questions regarding the electronic application process may be directed to Mr. Paul Gettys at (301) 443-2114.

    2. Content and Form Application Submission

    The applicant must include the project narrative as an attachment to the application package. Mandatory documents for all applicants include:

    • Table of contents.

    • Abstract (one page) summarizing the project.

    • Application forms:

    ○ SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance.

    ○ SF-424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.

    ○ SF-424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.

    • Budget Justification and Narrative (must be single spaced and not exceed five pages).

    • Project Narrative (must be single spaced and not exceed 15 pages).

    ○ Background information on the organization.

    ○ Proposed scope of work, objectives, and activities that provide a description of what will be accomplished, including a one-page Timeframe Chart.

    • Tribal Resolution. (Submission of either a final signed resolution or a draft resolution with the initial application is mandatory. If submitting a draft resolution, it is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the final signed resolution is submitted prior to the objective review of applications date.)

    • 501(c)(3) Certificate (if applicable).

    • Position Descriptions for Key Personnel.

    • Contractor/Consultant resumes or qualifications and scope of work.

    • Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL).

    • Certification Regarding Lobbying (GG-Lobbying Form).

    • Copy of current Negotiated Indirect Cost rate (IDC) agreement (required) in order to receive IDC.

    • Organizational Chart (optional).

    • Documentation of current required Financial Audit (if applicable).

    Acceptable forms of documentation include:

    ○ Email confirmation from Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) that audits were submitted; or

    ○ Face sheets from audit reports. These can be found on the FAC Web site: http://harvester.census.gov/sac/dissem/accessoptions.html?submit=Go+To+Database.

    Public Policy Requirements

    All Federal-wide public policies apply to IHS grants and cooperative agreements with exception of the Discrimination policy.

    Requirements for Project and Budget Narratives

    A. Project Narrative: This narrative should be a separate Word document that is no longer than 15 pages and must: be single-spaced, be type written, have consecutively numbered pages, use black type not smaller than 12 characters per one inch, and be printed on one side only of standard size 81/2″ x 11″ paper.

    Be sure to succinctly address and answer all questions listed under the narrative and place them under the evaluation criteria (refer to Section V.1, Evaluation criteria in this announcement) and place all responses and required information in the correct section (noted below), or they shall not be considered or scored. These narratives will assist the ORC in becoming familiar with the applicant's activities and accomplishments prior to this grant award. If the narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first 15 pages will be reviewed. The 15-page limit for the narrative does not include the work plan, standard forms, Tribal resolutions, table of contents, budget, budget justifications, narratives, and/or other appendix items.

    There are three parts to the narrative: Part A—Program Information; Part B—Program Planning and Evaluation; and Part C—Program Report. See below for additional details about what must be included in the narrative.

    Part A: Program Information (2 page limitation)

    Section 1: Needs

    Describe how the T/TO has determined the need to either enhance or develop its management capability to either assume PFSAs or not in the interest of self-determination. Note the progression of previous TMG projects/awards if applicable.

    Part B: Program Planning and Evaluation (11 page limitation)

    Section 1: Program Plans

    Describe fully and clearly the direction the T/TO plans to take with the selected TMG project type in addressing their health management infrastructure including how the T/TO plans to demonstrate improved health and services to the community or communities it serves. Include proposed timelines.

    Section 2: Program Evaluation

    Describe fully and clearly the improvements that will be made by the T/TO that will impact their management capability or prepare them for future improvements to their organization that will allow them to manage their health care system and identify the anticipated or expected benefits for the Tribe.

    Part C: Program Report (2 page limitation)

    Section 1: Describe major accomplishments over the last 24 months.

    Please identify and describe significant program achievements associated with the delivery of quality health services. Provide a comparison of the actual accomplishments to the goals established for the project period, or if applicable, provide justification for the lack of progress.

    Section 2: Describe major activities over the last 24 months.

    Please identify and summarize recent major health related project activities of the work done during the project period.

    B. Budget Narrative: This narrative must include a line item budget with a narrative justification for all expenditures identifying reasonable and allowable costs necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives as outlined in the project narrative. Budget should match the scope of work described in the project narrative. The page limitation should not exceed five pages.

    3. Submission Dates and Times

    Applications must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Any application received after the application deadline will not be accepted for processing, nor will it be given further consideration for funding. Grants.gov will notify the applicant via email if the application is rejected.

    If technical challenges arise and assistance is required with the electronic application process, contact Grants.gov Customer Support via email to [email protected] or at (800) 518-4726. Customer Support is available to address questions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (except on Federal holidays). If problems persist, contact Mr. Paul Gettys, DGM ([email protected]) at (301) 443-2114. Please be sure to contact Mr. Gettys at least ten days prior to the application deadline. Please do not contact the DGM until you have received a Grants.gov tracking number. In the event you are not able to obtain a tracking number, call the DGM as soon as possible.

    If the applicant needs to submit a paper application instead of submitting electronically through Grants.gov, a waiver must be requested. Prior approval must be requested and obtained from Ms. Tammy Bagley, Acting Director of DGM, (see Section IV.6 below for additional information). The waiver must: (1) Be documented in writing (emails are acceptable), before submitting a paper application, and (2) include clear justification for the need to deviate from the required electronic grants submission process. A written waiver request must be sent to [email protected] with a copy to [email protected] Once the waiver request has been approved, the applicant will receive a confirmation of approval email containing submission instructions and the mailing address to submit the application. A copy of the written approval must be submitted along with the hardcopy of the application that is mailed to DGM. Paper applications that are submitted without a copy of the signed waiver from the Acting Director of the DGM will not be reviewed or considered for funding. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Paper applications must be received by the DGM no later than 5:00 p.m., EST, on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Late applications will not be accepted for processing or considered for funding.

    4. Intergovernmental Review

    Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program.

    5. Funding Restrictions

    • Pre-award costs are not allowable.

    • The available funds are inclusive of direct and appropriate indirect costs.

    • Only one grant will be awarded per applicant.

    • IHS will not acknowledge receipt of applications.

    • The TMG may not be used to support recurring operational programs or to replace existing public and private resources. Funding received under a recurring Public Law 93-638 contract cannot be totally supplanted or totally replaced. Exception is allowed to charge a portion or percentage of salaries of existing staff positions involved in implementing the TMG grant, if applicable. However, this percentage of TMG funding must reflect supplementation of funding for the project and not supplantation of existing ISDEAA contract funds. Supplementation is “adding to a program” whereas supplantation is “taking the place of” funds. An entity cannot use the TMG funds to supplant the ISDEAA contract or recurring funding.

    • Ineligible Project Activities—The inclusion of the following projects or activities in an application will render the application ineligible.

    ○ Planning and negotiating activities associated with the intent of a Tribe to enter the IHS Self-Governance Project. A separate grant program is administered by the IHS for this purpose. Prospective applicants interested in this program should contact Mr. Jeremy Marshall, Policy Analyst, Office of Tribal Self-Governance, Indian Health Service, Reyes Building, 801 Thompson Avenue, Suite 240, Rockville, Maryland 20852, (301) 443-7821, and request information concerning the “Tribal Self-Governance Program Planning Cooperative Agreement Announcement” or the “Negotiation Cooperative Agreement Announcement.”

    ○ Projects related to water, sanitation, and waste management.

    ○ Projects that include direct patient care and/or equipment to provide those medical services to be used to establish or augment or continue direct patient clinical care. Medical equipment that is allowable under the Special Diabetes Grant Program is not allowable under the TMG Program.

    ○ Projects that include recruitment efforts for direct patient care services.

    ○ Projects that include long-term care or provision of any direct services.

    ○ Projects that include tuition, fees, or stipends for certification or training of staff to provide direct services.

    ○ Projects that include pre-planning, design, and planning of construction for facilities, including activities relating to program justification documents.

    ○ Projects that propose more than one project type. Refer to Section II, “Award Information,” specifically “Eligible TMG Project Types, Maximum Funding Levels and Project Periods” for more information. An example of a proposal with more than one project type that would be considered ineligible may include the creation of a strategic health plan (defined by TMG as a planning project type) and improving third-party billing structures (defined by TMG as a health management structure project type). Multi-year applications that include in the first year planning, evaluation, or feasibility activities with the remainder of the project years addressing management structure are also deemed ineligible.

    ○ Any Alaska Native Village that is neither a Title I nor a Title V organization and does not have the legal authority to contract services under 450(b) of the ISDEAA as it is affiliated with one of the Alaska Health Corporations as a consortium member and has all of its IHS funding for the Village administered through an Alaska Health Corporation, a Title V compactor, is not eligible for consideration under the TMG program.

    Moreover, Congress has reenacted its moratorium in Alaska on new contracting under the ISDEAA with Alaska Native Tribes that do not already have contracts or compacts with the IHS under this Act. See the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Jan. 17, 2014), Public Law 113-76, 128 Stat. 5, 343-44:

    SEC. 424. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and until October 1, 2018, the Indian Health Service may not disburse funds for the provision of health care services pursuant to Public Law 93-638 (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) to any Alaska Native village or Alaska Native village corporation that is located within the area served by an Alaska Native regional health entity.

    Consequently, Alaska Native Villages will not have any opportunity to enter into an ISDEAA contract with the IHS until this law lapses on October 1, 2018.

    • Other Limitations—A current TMG recipient cannot be awarded a new, renewal, or competing continuation grant for any of the following reasons:

    ○ The grantee will be administering two TMGs at the same time or have overlapping project/budget periods;

    ○ The current project is not progressing in a satisfactory manner;

    ○ The current project is not in compliance with program and financial reporting requirements; or

    ○ The applicant has an outstanding delinquent Federal debt. No award shall be made until either:

    The delinquent account is paid in full; or

    A negotiated repayment schedule is established and at least one payment is received.

    6. Electronic Submission Requirements

    All applications must be submitted electronically. Please use the http://www.Grants.gov Web site to submit an application electronically and select the “Find Grant Opportunities” link on the homepage. Download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit the completed application via the http://www.Grants.gov Web site. Electronic copies of the application may not be submitted as attachments to email messages addressed to IHS employees or offices.

    If the applicant receives a waiver to submit paper application documents, they must follow the rules and timelines that are noted below. The applicant must seek assistance at least ten days prior to the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.

    Applicants that do not adhere to the timelines for System for Award Management (SAM) and/or http://www.Grants.gov registration or that fail to request timely assistance with technical issues will not be considered for a waiver to submit a paper application.

    Please be aware of the following:

    • Please search for the application package in http://www.Grants.gov by entering the CFDA number or the Funding Opportunity Number. Both numbers are located in the header of this announcement.

    • If you experience technical challenges while submitting your application electronically, please contact Grants.gov Support directly at: [email protected] or (800) 518-4726. Customer Support is available to address questions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (except on Federal holidays).

    • Upon contacting Grants.gov, obtain a tracking number as proof of contact. The tracking number is helpful if there are technical issues that cannot be resolved and a waiver from the agency must be obtained.

    • If it is determined that a waiver is needed, the applicant must submit a request in writing (emails are acceptable) to [email protected] with a copy to [email protected] Please include a clear justification for the need to deviate from the standard electronic submission process.

    • If the waiver is approved, the application should be sent directly to the DGM by the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.

    • Applicants are strongly encouraged not to wait until the deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov as the registration process for SAM and Grants.gov could take up to fifteen working days.

    • Please use the optional attachment feature in Grants.gov to attach additional documentation that may be requested by the DGM.

    • All applicants must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this Funding Announcement.

    • After electronically submitting the application, the applicant will receive an automatic acknowledgment from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The DGM will download the application from Grants.gov and provide necessary copies to the appropriate agency officials. Neither the DGM nor the Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes will notify the applicant that the application has been received.

    • Email applications will not be accepted under this announcement.

    Universal Entity Identifier (UEI) Numbering System

    All IHS applicants and grantee organizations are required to obtain a UEI number and maintain an active registration in the SAM database. The UEI number is a unique 9-digit identification number which uniquely identifies each entity. The UEI number is site specific; therefore, each distinct performance site may be assigned a UEI number. Obtaining a UEI number is easy, and there is no charge. To obtain a UEI number, please contact Mr. Paul Gettys on (301) 443-2114.

    All HHS recipients are required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, as amended (“Transparency Act”), to report information on subawards. Accordingly, all IHS grantees must notify potential first-tier subrecipients that no entity may receive a first-tier subaward unless the entity has provided its UEI number to the prime grantee organization. This requirement ensures the use of a universal identifier to enhance the quality of information available to the public pursuant to the Transparency Act.

    System for Award Management (SAM)

    Organizations that were not registered with Central Contractor Registration and have not registered with SAM will need to obtain a UEI number first and then access the SAM online registration through the SAM home page at https://www.sam.gov (U.S. organizations will also need to provide an Employer Identification Number from the Internal Revenue Service that may take an additional 2-5 weeks to become active). Completing and submitting the registration takes approximately one hour to complete and SAM registration will take 3-5 business days to process. Registration with the SAM is free of charge. Applicants may register online at https://www.sam.gov.

    Additional information on implementing the Transparency Act, including the specific requirements for UEI and SAM, can be found on the IHS Grants Management, Grants Policy Web site: https://www.ihs.gov/dgm/index.cfm?module=dsp_dgm_policy_topics.

    V. Application Review Information

    The instructions for preparing the application narrative also constitute the evaluation criteria for reviewing and scoring the application. Weights assigned to each section are noted in parentheses. The 15-page narrative should include only the first year of activities; information for multi-year projects should be included as an appendix. See “Multi-year Project Requirements” at the end of this section for more information. The narrative section should be written in a manner that is clear to outside reviewers unfamiliar with prior related activities of the applicant. It should be well organized, succinct, and contain all information necessary for reviewers to understand the project fully. Points will be assigned to each evaluation criteria adding up to a total of 100 points. A minimum score of 60 points is required for funding. Points are assigned as follows:

    1. Criteria A. Introduction and Need for Assistance (20 points)

    (1) Describe the T/TO's current health operation. Include what programs and services are currently provided (i.e., Federally-funded, State-funded, etc.), information regarding technologies currently used (i.e., hardware, software, services, etc.), and identify the source(s) of technical support for those technologies (i.e., Tribal staff, Area Office, vendor, etc.). Include information regarding whether the T/TO has a health department and/or health board and how long it has been operating.

    (2) Describe the population to be served by the proposed project. Include the number of eligible IHS beneficiaries who currently use the services.

    (3) Describe the geographic location of the proposed project including any geographic barriers to the health care users in the area to be served.

    (4) Identify all TMGs received since FY 2010, dates of funding and a summary of project accomplishments. State how previous TMG funds facilitated the progression of health development relative to the current proposed project. (Copies of reports will not be accepted.)

    (5) Identify the eligible project type and priority group of the applicant.

    (6) Explain the need/reason for the proposed project by identifying specific gaps or weaknesses in services or infrastructure that will be addressed by the proposed project. Explain how these gaps/weaknesses have been assessed.

    (7) If the proposed project includes information technology (i.e., hardware, software, etc.), provide further information regarding measures taken or to be taken that ensure the proposed project will not create other gaps in services or infrastructure (i.e., negatively affect or impact IHS interface capability, Government Performance and Results Act reporting requirements, contract reporting requirements, Information Technology (IT) compatibility, etc.) if applicable.

    (8) Describe the effect of the proposed project on current programs (i.e., Federally-funded, State-funded, etc.) and, if applicable, on current equipment (i.e., hardware, software, services, etc.). Include the effect of the proposed project on planned/anticipated programs and/or equipment.

    (9) Address how the proposed project relates to the purpose of the TMG Program by addressing the appropriate description that follows:

    • Identify if the T/TO is an IHS Title I contractor. Address if the self-determination contract is a master contract of several programs or if individual contracts are used for each program. Include information regarding whether or not the Tribe participates in a consortium contract (i.e., more than one Tribe participating in a contract). Address what programs are currently provided through those contracts and how the proposed project will enhance the organization's capacity to manage the contracts currently in place.

    • Identify if the T/TO is not a Title I organization. Address how the proposed project will enhance the organization's management capabilities, what programs and services the organization is currently seeking to contract and an anticipated date for contract.

    • Identify if the T/TO is an IHS Title V compactor. Address when the T/TO entered into the compact and how the proposed project will further enhance the organization's management capabilities.

    B. Project Objective(s), Work Plan and Approach (40 points)

    (1) Identify the proposed project objective(s) addressing the following:

    • Objectives must be measureable and (if applicable) quantifiable.

    • Objectives must be results oriented.

    • Objectives must be time-limited.

    Example: By installing new third-party billing software, the Tribe will increase the number of bills processed by 15 percent at the end of 12 months.

    (2) Address how the proposed project will result in change or improvement in program operations or processes for each proposed project objective. Also address what tangible products are expected from the project (i.e., policies and procedures manual, health plan, etc.).

    (3) Address the extent to which the proposed project will build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the need(s) of the target population.

    (4) Submit a work plan in the Appendix which includes the following information:

    • Provide the action steps on a timeline for accomplishing the proposed project objective(s).

    • Identify who will perform the action steps.

    • Identify who will supervise the action steps taken.

    • Identify what tangible products will be produced during and at the end of the proposed project.

    • Identify who will accept and/or approve work products during the duration of the proposed project and at the end of the proposed project.

    • Include any training that will take place during the proposed project and who will be providing and attending the training.

    • Include evaluation activities planned in the work plans.

    (5) If consultants or contractors will be used during the proposed project, please include the following information in their scope of work (or note if consultants/contractors will not be used):

    • Educational requirements.

    • Desired qualifications and work experience.

    • Expected work products to be delivered on a timeline. If a potential consultant/contractor has already been identified, please include a resume in the Appendix.

    (6) Describe what updates (i.e., revision of policies/procedures, upgrades, technical support, etc.) will be required for the continued success of the proposed project. Include when these updates are anticipated and where funds will come from to conduct the update and/or maintenance.

    C. Program Evaluation (20 points)

    Each proposed objective requires an evaluation component to assess its progression and ensure its completion. Also, include the evaluation activities in the work plan.

    Describe the proposed plan to evaluate both outcomes and processes. Outcome evaluation relates to the results identified in the objectives, and process evaluation relates to the work plan and activities of the project.

    (1) For outcome evaluation, describe:

    • What will the criteria be for determining success of each objective?

    • What data will be collected to determine whether the objective was met?

    • At what intervals will data be collected?

    • Who will collect the data and their qualifications?

    • How will the data be analyzed?

    • How will the results be used?

    (2) For process evaluation, describe:

    • How will the project be monitored and assessed for potential problems and needed quality improvements?

    • Who will be responsible for monitoring and managing project improvements based on results of ongoing process improvements and their qualifications?

    • How will ongoing monitoring be used to improve the project?

    • Describe any products, such as manuals or policies, that might be developed and how they might lend themselves to replication by others.

    • How will the organization document what is learned throughout the project period?

    (3) Describe any evaluation efforts planned after the grant period has ended.

    (4) Describe the ultimate benefit to the Tribe that is expected to result from this project. An example of this might be the ability of the Tribe to expand preventive health services because of increased billing and third party payments.

    D. Organizational Capabilities, Key Personnel and Qualifications (15 points)

    This section outlines the broader capacity of the organization to complete the project outlined in the work plan. It includes the identification of personnel responsible for completing tasks and the chain of responsibility for successful completion of the projects outlined in the work plan.

    (1) Describe the organizational structure of the T/TO beyond health care activities, if applicable.

    (2) Provide information regarding plans to obtain management systems if the T/TO does not have an established management system currently in place that complies with 25 CFR part 900, subpart F, “Standards for Tribal or Tribal Organization Management Systems.” State if management systems are already in place and how long the systems have been in place.

    (3) Describe the ability of the organization to manage the proposed project. Include information regarding similarly sized projects in scope and financial assistance as well as other grants and projects successfully completed.

    (4) Describe what equipment (i.e., fax machine, phone, computer, etc.) and facility space (i.e., office space) will be available for use during the proposed project. Include information about any equipment not currently available that will be purchased through the grant.

    (5) List key personnel who will work on the project. Include all titles of key personnel in the work plan. In the Appendix, include position descriptions and resumes for all key personnel. Position descriptions should clearly describe each position and duties, indicating desired qualifications and experience requirements related to the proposed project. Resumes must indicate that the proposed staff member is qualified to carry out the proposed project activities. If a position is to be filled, indicate that information on the proposed position description.

    (6) Address how the T/TO will sustain the position(s) after the grant expires if the project requires additional personnel (i.e., IT support, etc.). State if there is no need for additional personnel.

    (7) If the personnel are to be only partially funded by this grant, indicate the percentage of time to be allocated to the project and identify the resources used to fund the remainder of the individual's salary.

    E. Categorical Budget and Budget Justification (5 points)

    (1) Provide a categorical budget for each of the 12-month budget periods requested.

    (2) If indirect costs are claimed, indicate and apply the current negotiated rate to the budget. Include a copy of the rate agreement in the Appendix.

    (3) Provide a narrative justification explaining why each categorical budget line item is necessary and relevant to the proposed project. Include sufficient cost and other details to facilitate the determination of cost allowability (i.e., equipment specifications, etc.).

    Multi-Year Project Requirements (if applicable)

    For projects requiring a second and/or third year, include only Year 2 and/or Year 3 narrative sections (objectives, evaluation components and work plan) that differ from those in Year 1. For every project year, include a full budget justification and a detailed, itemized categorical budget showing calculation methodologies for each item. The same weights and criteria which are used to evaluate a one-year project or the first year of a multi-year project will be applied when evaluating the second and third years of a multi-year application. A weak second and/or third year submission could negatively impact the overall score of an application and result in elimination of the proposed second and/or third years with a recommendation for only a one-year award.

    Appendix Items

    • Work plan, logic model and/or time line for proposed objectives.

    • Position descriptions for key staff.

    • Resumes of key staff that reflect current duties.

    • Consultant or contractor proposed scope of work and letter of commitment (if applicable).

    • Current Indirect Cost Agreement.

    • Organizational chart.

    • Additional documents to support narrative (i.e., data tables, key news articles, etc.).

    2. Review and Selection

    Each application will be prescreened by the DGM staff for eligibility and completeness as outlined in the funding announcement. Applications that meet the eligibility criteria shall be reviewed for merit by the ORC based on evaluation criteria in this funding announcement. The ORC could be composed of both Tribal and Federal reviewers appointed by the IHS program to review and make recommendations on these applications. The technical review process ensures selection of quality projects in a national competition for limited funding. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not be referred to the ORC. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Applicants will be notified by DGM, via email, to outline minor missing components (i.e., budget narratives, audit documentation, key contact form) needed for an otherwise complete application. All missing documents must be sent to DGM on or before the due date listed in the email of notification of missing documents required.

    To obtain a minimum score for funding by the ORC, applicants must address all program requirements and provide all required documentation.

    VI. Award Administration Information 1. Award Notices

    The Notice of Award (NoA) is a legally binding document signed by the Grants Management Officer and serves as the official notification of the grant award. The NoA will be initiated by the DGM in our grant system, GrantSolutions (https://www.grantsolutions.gov). Each entity that is approved for funding under this announcement will need to request or have a user account in GrantSolutions in order to retrieve their NoA. The NoA is the authorizing document for which funds are dispersed to the approved entities and reflects the amount of Federal funds awarded, the purpose of the grant, the terms and conditions of the award, the effective date of the award, and the budget/project period.

    Disapproved Applicants

    Applicants who received a score less than the recommended funding level for approval (60 points required) and were deemed to be disapproved by the ORC, will receive an Executive Summary Statement from the Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes (ODSCT) within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC outlining the strengths and weaknesses of their application submitted. The ODSCT will also provide additional contact information as needed to address questions and concerns as well as provide technical assistance if desired.

    Approved but Unfunded Applicants

    Approved but unfunded applicants that met the minimum scoring range and were deemed by the ORC to be “Approved,” but were not funded due to lack of funding, will have their applications held by DGM for a period of one year. If additional funding becomes available during the course of FY 2015 the approved but unfunded application may be re-considered by the awarding program office for possible funding. The applicant will also receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC.

    Note:

    Any correspondence other than the official NoA signed by an IHS Grants Management Official announcing to the Project Director that an award has been made to their organization is not an authorization to implement their program on behalf of IHS.

    2. Administrative Requirements

    Grants are administered in accordance with the following regulations, policies, and OMB cost principles:

    A. The criteria as outlined in this Program Announcement.

    B. Administrative Regulations for Grants:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for Federal Awards located at 45 CFR part 75.

    C. Grants Policy:

    • HHS Grants Policy Statement, Revised 01/07.

    D. Cost Principles:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for Federal Awards, “Cost Principles,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart E.

    E. Audit Requirements:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for Federal Awards, “Audit Requirements,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart F.

    3. Indirect Costs

    This section applies to all grant recipients that request reimbursement of indirect costs (IDC) in their grant application. In accordance with HHS Grants Policy Statement, Part II-27, IHS requires applicants to obtain a current IDC rate agreement prior to award. The rate agreement must be prepared in accordance with the applicable cost principles and guidance as provided by the cognizant agency or office. A current rate covers the applicable grant activities under the current award's budget period. If the current rate is not on file with the DGM at the time of award, the IDC portion of the budget will be restricted. The restrictions remain in place until the current rate is provided to the DGM.

    Generally, IDC rates for IHS grantees are negotiated with the Division of Cost Allocation (DCA) https://rates.psc.gov/ and the Department of Interior (Interior Business Center) http://www.doi.gov/ibc/services/Indirect_Cost_Services/index.cfm. For questions regarding the indirect cost policy, please call the Grants Management Specialist listed under “Agency Contacts” or the main DGM office at (301) 443-5204.

    4. Reporting Requirements

    The grantee must submit required reports consistent with the applicable deadlines. Failure to submit required reports within the time allowed may result in suspension or termination of an active grant, withholding of additional awards for the project, or other enforcement actions such as withholding of payments or converting to the reimbursement method of payment. Continued failure to submit required reports may result in one or both of the following: (1) The imposition of special award provisions; and (2) the non-funding or non-award of other eligible projects or activities. This requirement applies whether the delinquency is attributable to the failure of the grantee organization or the individual responsible for preparation of the reports. Reports must be submitted electronically via GrantSolutions. Personnel responsible for submitting reports will be required to obtain a login and password for GrantSolutions. Please see the Agency Contacts list in section VII for the systems contact information.

    The reporting requirements for this program are noted below.

    A. Progress Reports

    Program progress reports are required semi-annually within 30 days after the budget period ends. These reports must include a brief comparison of actual accomplishments to the goals established for the period, or, if applicable, provide sound justification for the lack of progress, and other pertinent information as required. A final report must be submitted within 90 days of expiration of the budget/project period.

    B. Financial Reports

    Federal Financial Report FFR (SF-425), Cash Transaction Reports are due 30 days after the close of every calendar quarter to the Payment Management Services, HHS at: http://www.dpm.psc.gov. It is recommended that the applicant also send a copy of the FFR (SF-425) report to the Grants Management Specialist. Failure to submit timely reports may cause a disruption in timely payments to the organization.

    Grantees are responsible and accountable for accurate information being reported on all required reports: The Progress Reports and Federal Financial Report.

    C. Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS)

    This award may be subject to the Transparency Act subaward and executive compensation reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170.

    The Transparency Act requires the OMB to establish a single searchable database, accessible to the public, with information on financial assistance awards made by Federal agencies. The Transparency Act also includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards.

    IHS has implemented a Term of Award into all IHS Standard Terms and Conditions, NoAs and funding announcements regarding the FSRS reporting requirement. This IHS Term of Award is applicable to all IHS grant and cooperative agreements issued on or after October 1, 2010, with a $25,000 subaward obligation dollar threshold met for any specific reporting period. Additionally, all new (discretionary) IHS awards (where the project period is made up of more than one budget period) and where: 1) the project period start date was October 1, 2010 or after and 2) the primary awardee will have a $25,000 subaward obligation dollar threshold during any specific reporting period will be required to address the FSRS reporting. For the full IHS award term implementing this requirement and additional award applicability information, visit the DGM Grants Policy Web site at: https://www.ihs.gov/dgm/index.cfm?module=dsp_dgm_policy_topics.

    Telecommunication for the hearing impaired is available at: TTY (301) 443-6394.

    VII. Agency Contacts

    1. Questions on the programmatic issues may be directed to: Ms. Patricia Spotted Horse, Program Analyst, Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes, Indian Health Service, 801 Thompson Avenue, Suite 220, Rockville, MD 20852-1609, Telephone: (301) 443-1104, Email: [email protected].

    2. Questions on grants management and fiscal matters may be directed to: Mr. Pallop Chareonvootitam, Grants Management Specialist, Office of Management Services, Division of Grants Management, 801 Thompson Avenue, TMP Suite 360, Rockville, MD 20852-1609, Telephone: (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 443-9602, Email: [email protected].

    3. Questions on systems matters may be directed to: Mr. Paul Gettys, Grant Systems Coordinator, Office of Management Services, Division of Grants Management, 801 Thompson Avenue, TMP Suite 360, Rockville, MD 20852, Phone: (301) 443-2114; or the DGM main line (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 443-9602, Email: [email protected].

    VIII. Other Information

    The PHS strongly encourages all cooperative agreement and contract recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of the facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the HHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.

    Dated: March 12, 2015. Robert G. McSwain, Acting Director, Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06353 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-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; Member Conflict: Eye Disease Mechanisms and Models.

    Date: April 14, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Alessandra C Rovescalli, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Rm. 5205 MSC7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1021, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

    Date: April 14, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Lynn E Luethke, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5166, MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 806-3323, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; SEP: 4D Nucleome Network Organizational Hub.

    Date: April 15, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.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: Allen Richon, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6184, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-379-9351, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR14-247: Pharmacogenetics, Pharmacoepigenetics and Personalized Medicine in Children.

    Date: April 16, 2015.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 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: Elaine Sierra-Rivera, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6184, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1779, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Ocular Diseases Pathophysiology and Therapeutic Approaches.

    Date: April 16, 2015.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Alessandra C Rovescalli, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Rm. 5205 MSC7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1021, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR-13-190: Detection of Pathogen Induced Cancer.

    Date: April 17, 2015.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Gagan Pandya, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Rm. 3200, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1167, [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 13, 2015. Anna Snouffer, Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06268 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications, contract proposal, 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 or contract proposal, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Clinical Research in HIV/HLB Diseases.

    Date: April 13, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Dupont Circle Hotel, 1500 New Hampshire Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    Contact Person: Stephanie L Constant, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7189, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-443-8784 [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Improving Red Blood Cells for Transfusion.

    Date: April 13, 2015.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7198, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Kristin Goltry, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7198, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0297, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 13, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06269 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0620] An Interactive Discussion on the Clinical Considerations of Risk in the Postmarket Environment; Public Workshop; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public workshop; request for comments.

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public workshop entitled “Clinical Considerations of Risk in the Postmarket Environment.” The purpose of this workshop is to provide a forum for an interactive discussion on assessing changes in medical device risk as quality and safety situations arise in the postmarket setting when a patient, operator, or member of the public uses the device. FDA is interested in obtaining input from stakeholders about assessing risk postmarket when new hazards develop in the postmarket setting that were not present or not known at the time of clearance or approval or hazards were anticipated, but harm occurs at an unexpected rate or in unexpected populations or use environments. Comments and suggestions generated through this workshop will facilitate the assessment of risk in postmarket quality and safety situations.

    Date and Time: The public workshop will be held on April 21, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Location: The public workshop will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.

    Contact Person: Jean M. Cooper, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5540, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-6141, email: [email protected]

    Registration: Registration is free and available on a first-come, first-served basis. Persons interested in attending this public workshop must register online by 4 p.m., April 13, 2015. Early registration is recommended because facilities are limited and, therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. If time and space permits, onsite registration on the day of the public workshop will be provided beginning at 7:30 a.m.

    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Susan Monahan, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5231, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5661, email: [email protected] no later than April 7, 2015.

    To register for the public workshop, please visit FDA's Medical Devices News & Events—Workshops & Conferences calendar at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm. (Select this meeting/public workshop from the posted events list.) Please provide complete contact information for each attendee, including name, title, affiliation, address, email, and telephone number. Those without Internet access should contact Susan Monahan (see Registration). Registrants will receive confirmation after they have been accepted and will be notified if they are on a waiting list.

    Streaming Webcast of the Public Workshop: This public workshop will also be Web cast. Persons interested in viewing the Web cast must register online by 4 p.m., April 13, 2015. Early registration is recommended because Web cast connections are limited. Organizations are requested to register all participants, but to view using one connection per location. Web cast participants will be sent technical system requirements after registration and will be sent connection access information after April 14, 2015. If you have never attended a Connect Pro event before, test your connection at https://collaboration.fda.gov/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm. To get a quick overview of the Connect Pro program, visit http://www.adobe.com/go/connectpro_overview. (FDA has verified the Web site addresses in this document, but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal Register.)

    Request to Speak: This public workshop includes a public comment session and topic-focused sessions. During online registration, you may indicate if you wish to speak during a public comment session and which topic you wish to address. FDA has included general topics in this document. FDA will do its best to accommodate requests to make public comments. Individuals and organizations with common interests are urged to consolidate or coordinate their presentations and request time for a joint presentation. Following the close of registration, FDA will determine the amount of time allotted to each speaker and will select and notify speakers by April 16, 2015. All requests to speak must be received by the close of registration on April 13, 2015. If selected to speak, any presentation materials must be emailed to Jean Cooper (see Contact Person) no later than April 13, 2015. No commercial or promotional material will be permitted to be presented or distributed at the public workshop.

    Comments: FDA is seeking input from FDA staff, medical device industry, standards organizations, health care providers, academia, patients, and other stakeholders. FDA is soliciting written or electronic comments on all aspects of the workshop topics. The deadline for submitting comments related to this public workshop is May 19, 2015.

    Regardless of attendance at the public workshop, interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. In addition, when responding to specific questions as outlined in section II of this document, please identify the question you are addressing. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available, it will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov. It may be viewed at the Division of Dockets Management (see Comments). A transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM, after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests are to be sent to the Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg., Rockville, MD 20857. A link to the transcripts will also be available approximately 45 days after the public workshop on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm. (Select this public workshop from the posted events list).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    There is a strong desire by FDA and industry to harmonize their practices regarding assessment of risk in postmarket quality and safety situations including, but not limited to, product defects, failures, faults, or shortages, and any resulting harm. When postmarket safety or quality issues arise, both the firm and FDA conduct risk analyses of the device in order to decide what actions to take. During this analysis, firms typically look for changes from their preproduction risk analysis to their postmarket experience and apply or update their risk management plan as appropriate. In contrast, FDA responds to the same issue by assessing information submitted in the firm's premarket submission and may consider other information such as information collected during an inspection when it is available. The result is that FDA and industry may base their decisions about postmarket quality and safety on different information.

    Managing risk does not mean eliminating risk. The medical device industry, FDA, doctors, and patients recognize that medical devices cleared or approved for market may pose some inherent risk, even when used appropriately according to labeling. Examples include, but are not limited to, manufacturing problems, materials changes, unanticipated design flaws, regional differences in clinical practice, measurement inaccuracies, incomplete instructions, transport and storage factors, and incorrect installation.

    FDA anticipates that principles and factors developed with public input will help bridge differences in understanding when conducting risk assessments.

    II. Topics for Discussion at the Public Workshop

    FDA held discussions in the Fall of 2014 with a working group of the Association of Advancement of Medical Instrumentation to develop a draft list of risk principles and factors to consider in analyzing postmarket risk. The draft principles and factors will be presented for discussion at the public meeting. The purpose of this workshop is to provide a forum for a collaborative discussion on postmarket risk principles and factors assessing risk when changes occur due to postmarket quality and safety situations. The following questions are provided to optimize the discussion.

    • What factors are important to take into account when conducting risk assessments of safety and quality issues that occur with marketed medical devices? What principles best guide the risk assessment process to assure timely, consistent, and optimal results?

    • Are there improvements that FDA and stakeholders could make to enhance risk assessments in recall and shortage situations with medical devices?

    • Are there specific activities or issues related to postmarket quality, safety, or compliance activities where approaches used by FDA and industry currently differ enough to create confusion or delay or limit appropriate public health actions? Please identify them.

    • In which activities and areas of postmarket quality, compliance, and safety would more detailed policies or guidance be most useful?

    At this public workshop, participants will engage in open dialogue to discuss the responses to issues raised by the presenters and the questions in this Federal Register notice.

    III. Reference

    The following reference has been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. We have verified all Web site addresses, but we are not responsible for subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal Register.

    1. FDA, “Quality System (QS) Regulation/Medical Device Good Manufacturing Practices,” 2014, available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/PostmarketRequirements/QualitySystemsRegulations/default.htm. Dated: March 13, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06278 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Cancellation of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, April 2, 2015, 1:00 p.m. to April 2, 2015, 2:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the Federal Register on March 6, 2015, 80 FR 12185.

    The meeting has been cancelled due to the reassignment of applications.

    Dated: March 13, 2015. Anna Snouffer, Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06274 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID: FEMA-2014-0033; OMB No. 1660-0132] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection instruments FEMA will use.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected] or faxed to (202) 395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3172, facsimile number (202) 212-4701, or email address [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Collection of Information

    Title: Level 1 Assessment Form, Level 3 Evaluation Form for Students, and Level 3 Evaluation Form for Supervisors.

    Type of Information Collection: Revision of currently approved collection.

    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 092-0-2, Level 1 Assessment Form; FEMA Form 092-0-2A, Level 3 Evaluation Form for Students; FEMA Form 092-0-2B, Level 3 Evaluation Form for Supervisors.

    Abstract: The forms will be used to survey the Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP) students enrolled in CDP courses and their supervisors. The surveys will collect information regarding quality of instruction, course material, and impact of training on their professional employment.

    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 44,600.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 11,150.

    Estimated Cost: 403,795.25.

    Dated: March 13, 2015. Terry Cochran, Acting Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06336 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-53-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket No. FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1301] Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency; DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 4, 2013, FEMA published in the Federal Register a proposed flood hazard determination notice at 78 FR 20340 that contained a table which included a Web page address through which the Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), and where applicable, the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for the communities listed in the table could be accessed. The information available through the Web page address has subsequently been updated. The table provided here represents the proposed flood hazard determinations and communities affected for New Orleans/Orleans Parish, Louisiana.

    DATES:

    Comments are to be submitted on or before June 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1301, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064 or (email) [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed in the table below, in accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP may only be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.

    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the table below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard determinations shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations will also be considered before the FIRM and FIS report are made final.

    Correction

    In the proposed flood hazard determination notice published at 78 FR 20340 in the April 4, 2013, issue of the Federal Register, FEMA published a table titled “New Orleans/Orleans Parish, Louisiana.” This table contained a Web page address through which the Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for the communities listed in the table could be accessed online. A Revised Preliminary FIRM and/or FIS report have subsequently been issued for some or all of the communities listed in the table. The information available through the Web page address listed in the table has been updated to reflect the Revised Preliminary information and is to be used in lieu of the information previously available.

    Community Community map repository address New Orleans/Orleans Parish, Louisiana Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata. New Orleans/Orleans Parish Public Library, Archives Division, 219 Loyola Avenue, 3rd Floor, New Orleans, LA 70112. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: February 25, 2015. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06339 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2011-0049; Docket No. USCG-2015-0138] Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee; Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meetings; update.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard published in the Federal Register on Friday, March 6, 2015, two meeting notices announcing the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee and Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee. This notice corrects the previous notices to add an explanation for why 15-days advance notice was not given as required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act regulations. All other information regarding the meetings has not changed.

    DATES:

    The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee met on Monday, March 16 and Tuesday, March 17, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee working groups are scheduled to meet on March 18, 2015, from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m., and the full Committee is scheduled to meet on March 19, 2015, from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lieutenant Ashley Holm, Alternate Designated Federal Officer for Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee, telephone 202-372-1128 or email [email protected] and Davis Breyer, Alternate Designated Federal Officer for Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee, telephone 202-372-1445 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On March 6, 2015, the Coast Guard published two notices of Federal Advisory Committee Act meetings in the Federal Register. 80 FR 12187. These notices announced the meeting dates and information for the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee and Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee, respectively. This update to those notices does not change any meeting dates or information provided in the original notices, which can be found at 80 FR 12187.

    General Services Administration rules, Title 41, Code of Federal Regulations, § 102-365(b) requires meeting notices to be published at least 15 calendar days prior to an advisory committee meeting. In exceptional circumstances, the agency may provide notice in less than 15 calendar days but the agency must provide a reason as to why the notice is being published in less than 15 calendar days. This notice serves to provide the reasoning required by regulation as to why the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee and Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee meeting notices were published in less than 15 calendar days prior to their respective meetings.

    In the weeks leading up to the meetings, the Department of Homeland Security dedicated many of its resources to potential lapse in appropriation issues. Because of the redirection of resources to support the potential shutdown, the publication of the meeting notices for the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee and Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee were delayed.

    Dated: March 13, 2015. J.C. Burton, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06255 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1436 Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations for Lee County, Illinois, and Incorporated Areas and Ogle County, Illinois, and Incorporated Areas AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Proposed notice; withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing its proposed notices concerning proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include the addition or modification of any Base Flood Elevation, base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway (herein after referred to as proposed flood hazard determinations) on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps and, where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study reports for Lee County, Illinois, and Incorporated Areas and Ogle County, Illinois, and Incorporated Areas.

    DATES:

    These withdrawals are effective March 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1436 to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On November 3, 2014, FEMA published proposed notices at 79 FR 65231, proposing flood hazard determinations for Lee County, Illinois, and Incorporated Areas and Ogle County, Illinois, and Incorporated Areas. FEMA is withdrawing the proposed notices.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.

    Dated: February 23, 2015. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06337 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-950] Certain Electronic Products, Including Products With Near Field Communication (“NFC”) System-Level Functionality and/or Battery Power-Up Functionality, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Institution of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on February 10, 2015, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of NXP B.V. of The Netherlands and NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc. of San Jose, California. A letter supplementing the complaint was filed on February 27, 2015. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic products, including products with near field communication (“NFC”) system-level functionality and/or battery power-up functionality, components thereof, and products containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,412,230 (“the '230 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,280,304 (“the '304 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,065,389 (“the '389 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,204,959 (“the '959 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,412,185 (“the '185 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 6,590,365 (“the '365 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.

    The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.

    ADDRESSES:

    The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.

    Authority:

    The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2014).

    Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on March 12, 2015, ordered that

    (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic products, including products with near field communication (“NFC”) system-level functionality and/or battery power-up functionality, components thereof, and products containing same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 6 and 7 of the '230 patent; claims 1 and 11 of the '304 patent; claims 1 and 5 of the '389 patent; claims 1 and 13 of the '959 patent; claims 1 and 8 of the '185 patent; and claims 1 and 7 of the '365 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

    (2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties and other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);

    (3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

    (a) The complainants are:

    NXP B.V., High Tech Campus 60, 5656 AG, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc., 411 East Plumeria Drive, San Jose, CA 95134.

    (b) The respondent is the following entity alleged to be in violation of section 337, and is the party upon which the complaint is to be served:

    Dell, Inc., One Dell Way, Round Rock, TX 78682.

    (c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

    (4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

    Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondent in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

    Failure of the respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 13, 2015. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06245 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE-15-009] Sunshine Act Meeting Agency Holding the Meeting:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    Time and Date:

    March 23, 2015 at 11:00 a.m.

    Place:

    Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

    Status:

    Open to the public.

    Matters to be Considered:

    1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

    2. Minutes.

    3. Ratification List.

    4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-459 and 731-TA-1155 (Review) (Commodity Matchbooks from India). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission on April 2, 2015.

    5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. Earlier announcement of this meeting was not possible.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 17, 2015. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06430 Filed 3-17-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [CPCLO Order No. 002-2015] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a modified system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-130, notice is hereby given that the Department of Justice (Department or DOJ) proposes to amend an existing Department-wide system of records notice titled, “Debt Collection Enforcement System,” JUSTICE/DOJ-016, last published at 77 FR 9965, on February 21, 2012. The Department is adding one new routine use to the Debt Collection Enforcement System.

    DATES:

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), the public is given a 30-day period in which to comment. Therefore, please submit any comments by April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public, OMB, and Congress are invited to submit any comments to the Department of Justice, ATTN: Privacy Analyst, Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20530, or by facsimile at (202) 307-0693.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dennis Dauphin, Director, Debt Collection Management Staff, Justice Management Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 145 N. Street NE., Washington, DC 20530, phone 202-514-7322.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The DOJ published a new Department-wide Privacy Act system of records notice on February 21, 2012, titled “Debt Collection Enforcement System,” JUSTICE/DOJ-016, to reflect the consolidation of the Department's debt collection enforcement systems that were previously maintained in various individual DOJ components into a single, centralized system. This system of records is maintained by the Department to cover records used by the Department's components or offices, and/or contract private counsel retained by DOJ to perform legal, financial and administrative services associated with the collection of debts due the United States, including related negotiation, settlement, litigation, and enforcement efforts. The DOJ also published an accompanying exemption regulation on April 18, 2012 (77 FR 23117), to exempt certain records in this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act.

    In this modification, DOJ proposes to add a new routine use, paragraph “u”, to allow information from the Debt Collection Enforcement System to be disclosed to Federal or state agencies for the purpose of identifying, preventing, or recouping improper payments to an applicant for, or recipient of, Federal funds, including funds disbursed by a state in a state-administered, federally-funded program. This transfer of information is authorized pursuant to the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010, as amended by the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012; E.O. 13520, dated November 20, 2009; and Presidential Memorandum—Enhancing Payment Accuracy Through a “Do Not Pay List,” dated June 18, 2010, which required agencies to review existing databases known collectively as the “Do Not Pay List” before the release of any Federal funds. The purpose of the “Do Not Pay List” is to help prevent, reduce, and stop improper payments from being made, and to identify and mitigate fraud, waste, and abuse.

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), the Department has provided a report to OMB and Congress on this modified system of records.

    Dated: February 25, 2015. Erika Brown Lee, Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer, United States Department of Justice. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    (u) For the purpose of identifying, preventing, or recouping improper payments to an applicant for, or recipient of, Federal funds, including funds disbursed by a state in a state-administered, Federally-funded program, information from this system may be disclosed to (a) a Federal or state agency, its employees, agents (including contractors of its agents) or contractors; or (b) a fiscal or financial agent designated by the Financial Management Service or other Department of the Treasury bureau or office, including employees, agents or contractors of such agent; or (c) a contractor of the Financial Management Service.

    [FR Doc. 2015-06335 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-CN-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Electrical Standards for Construction and for General Industry ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Electrical Standards for Construction and for General Industry,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Public comments on the ICR are invited.

    DATES:

    The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201501-1218-001 (this link will only become active on the day following publication of this notice) or by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected] Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor—OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Departmental Information Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; or by email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).

    This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Electrical Standards for Construction and for General Industry information collection. The information collection requirements specified by the Electrical Standards for Construction and for General Industry alert workers to the presence and types of electrical hazards in the workplace, and thereby prevent serious injury and death by electrocution. The information collection requirements in these Standards involve the following: The employer using electrical equipment that is marked with the manufacturer's name, trademark, or other descriptive markings that identify the producer of the equipment, and marking the equipment with the voltage, current, wattage, or other ratings necessary; requiring each disconnecting means for motors and appliances to be marked legibly to indicate its purpose, unless located and arranged so the purpose is evident; requiring entrances to rooms and other guarded locations containing exposed live parts to be marked with conspicuous warning signs forbidding unqualified persons from entering; and, for construction employers only, establishing and implementing the assured equipment grounding conductor program instead of using ground-fault circuit interrupters. Occupational Safety and Health Act sections 2(b)(9), 6, and 8(c) authorize this information collection. See 29 U.S.C. 651(b)(9), 655, and 657(c).

    This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1218-0130.

    OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2015. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2014 (79 FR 64838).

    Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1218-0130. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Agency: DOL-OSHA.

    Title of Collection: Electrical Standards for Construction and for General Industry.

    OMB Control Number: 1218-0130.

    Affected Public: Private Sector—businesses or other for-profits and not-for-profit institutions.

    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 625,902.

    Total Estimated Number of Responses: 3,039,860.

    Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 220,789 hours.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $3,772,760.

    Dated: March 13, 2015. Michel Smyth, Departmental Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06292 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-82,679] SST Truck Company, LLC; A Navistar, Inc. Company Truck Specialty Center and Warehouse and Distribution Including On-Site Leased Workers From Employee Solutions and ODW Contract Services, Garland, Texas; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on June 21, 2013, applicable to workers of SST Truck Company, LLC, A Navistar, Inc. Company, Truck Specialty Center (TSC), including on-site leased workers from Employee Solutions, Garland, Texas. The Notice of Determination was published in the Federal Register on July 5, 2013 (78 FR 40508).

    At the request of former workers, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers' firm is engaged in the production and modifications of class 4-8 trucks. The worker group includes workers at 3737 Grader Street and 3737 West Miller Road.

    The investigation confirmed that worker separations at SST Truck Company, LLC, a Navistar, Inc. Company, Warehouse and Distribution, including on-site leased workers from ODW Contract Services, Garland, Texas, are attributable to the same shift in production to a foreign country that affected workers in the Truck Specialty Center.

    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers from SST Truck Company, LLC, a Navistar, Inc. Company, Warehouse and Distribution, including on-site leased workers from ODW Contract Services, Garland, Texas.

    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-82,679 is hereby issued as follows:

    All workers of SST Truck Company, LLC, A Navistar, Inc. Company, Truck Specialty Center (TSC) and Warehouse and Distribution, including on-site leased workers from Employee Solutions and ODW Contract Services, Garland, Texas, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after April 18, 2012 through June 21, 2015, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the date of certification through June 21, 2015, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 20th day of February, 2015. Michael W. Jaffe, Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06247 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Shipyard Employment Standards ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Shipyard Employment Standards,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Public comments on the ICR are invited.

    DATES:

    The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201501-1218-011 (this link will only become active on the day following publication of this notice) or by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected] Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor—OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Departmental Information Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; or by email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3507(A)(1)(D).

    This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Shipyard Employment Standards information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR part 1915. The information collection requirements of the Standards are directed towards reducing workers' risk of death or serious injury by ensuring that equipment has been tested and is in safe operating condition. The Standards include information collections related to recordkeeping requirements and the notices (labeling requirements) an Occupation Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) covered employer subject to the Standards must provide covered workers. OSH Act sections 2(b)(9), 6, and 8(c) authorize this information collection. See 29 U.S.C. 651(b)(9), 655, and 657(c).

    This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1218-0220.

    OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2015. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on November 13, 2014 (79 FR 67465).

    Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1218-0220. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Agency: DOL-OSHA.

    Title of Collection: Shipyard Employment Standards.

    OMB Control Number: 1218-0220.

    Affected Public: Private Sector—business or other for-profits.

    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 693.

    Total Estimated Number of Responses: 23,805.

    Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 9,773 hours.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

    Dated: March 13, 2015. Michel Smyth, Departmental Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06291 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Electrical Standards for Construction and for General Industry ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Electrical Standards for Construction and for General Industry,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Public comments on the ICR are invited.

    DATES:

    The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201501-1218-001 (this link will only become active on the day following publication of this notice) or by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected].

    Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected]. Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor—OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Departmental Information Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; or by email: [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected].

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Electrical Standards for Construction and for General Industry information collection. The information collection requirements specified by the Electrical Standards for Construction and for General Industry alert workers to the presence and types of electrical hazards in the workplace, and thereby prevent serious injury and death by electrocution. The information collection requirements in these Standards involve the following: The employer using electrical equipment that is marked with the manufacturer's name, trademark, or other descriptive markings that identify the producer of the equipment, and marking the equipment with the voltage, current, wattage, or other ratings necessary; requiring each disconnecting means for motors and appliances to be marked legibly to indicate its purpose, unless located and arranged so the purpose is evident; requiring the entrances to rooms and other guarded locations containing exposed live parts to be marked with conspicuous warning signs forbidding unqualified persons from entering; and, for construction employers only, establishing and implementing the assured equipment grounding conductor program instead of using ground-fault circuit interrupters. Occupational Safety and Health Act sections 2(b)(9), 6, and 8(c) authorize this information collection. See 29 U.S.C. 651(b)(9), 655, and 657(c).

    This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1218-0130.

    OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2015. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2014 (79 FR 64838).

    Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1218-0130. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Agency: DOL-OSHA.

    Title of Collection: Electrical Standards for Construction and for General Industry.

    OMB Control Number: 1218-0130.

    Affected Public: Private Sector—businesses or other for-profits and not-for-profit institutions.

    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 625,902.

    Total Estimated Number of Responses: 3,039,860.

    Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 220,789 hours.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $3,772,760.

    Dated: March 13, 2015. Michel Smyth, Departmental Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06287 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Cotton Dust Standard ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Cotton Dust Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Public comments on the ICR are invited.

    DATES:

    The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201502-1218-007 (this link will only become active on the day following publication of this notice) or by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected] Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor—OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Departmental Information Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; or by email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Cotton Dust Standard information collection codified in regulations 29 CFR 1910-1043. The purpose of the Standard and its information collection requirements is to provide protection for employees from the adverse health effects associated with occupational exposure to cotton dust. An Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) covered employer subject to the Standard must monitor employee exposure, reduce employee exposure to within permissible exposure limits, provide employees with medical examinations and training, and establish and maintain employee exposure monitoring and medical records. OSH Act sections 2(b)(9), 6, and 8(c) authorize this information collection. See 29 U.S.C. 651(b)(9), 655, and 657(c).

    This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1218-0061.

    OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2015. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on November 13, 2014 (79 FR 67462).

    Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1218-0061. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Agency: DOL-OSHA.

    Title of Collection: Cotton Dust Standard.

    OMB Control Number: 1218-0061.

    Affected Public: Private Sector—businesses or other for-profits.

    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 11,786.

    Total Estimated Number of Responses: 58,992.

    Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 21,549 hours.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $2,896,328.

    Dated: March 13, 2015. Michel Smyth, Departmental Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06310 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-85,617] Day & Zimmermann, Inc., Kansas Division, Parsons, Kansas; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration

    On December 17, 2014, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of Day & Zimmermann, Inc., Parsons, Kansas. The notice was published in the Federal Register on December 31, 2014 (79 FR 78911).

    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:

    (1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;

    (2) If it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or

    (3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision.

    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the findings that the subject firm did not import high explosive mortar rounds and demolition charges or shift production to a foreign country of such articles.

    In the request for reconsideration, the Kansas Department of Commerce alleged workers at the subject firm had been impacted by foreign competition as production that could have taken place at the subject firm had instead been awarded to a firm in Canada.

    According to 29 CFR 90.2, increased imports means that imports have increased either absolutely or relative to domestic production compared to a representative base period. The representative base period shall be one year consisting of the four quarters immediately preceding the date which is twelve months prior to the date of the petition. This petition was filed in October 2014. Therefore, the period under investigation is 2012, 2013, January through September 2013, and January through September 2014.

    During the reconsideration investigation, the Department collected additional information from the subject firm and the customer of the subject firm.

    The information obtained confirmed that neither the subject firm nor its customer increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with high explosive mortar rounds and demolition charges. Additionally, the production of such articles did not shift to a foreign country in the period under investigation.

    Therefore, after careful review of the request for reconsideration, the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.

    Conclusion

    After careful review, I determine that the requirements of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272, have not been met and, therefore, deny the petition for group eligibility of Day & Zimmermann, Inc., Parsons, Kansas, to apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273.

    Signed in Washington, DC on this 26th day of February 2015. Michael W. Jaffe, Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06246 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
    LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION Extension of Comment Period for Agricultural Worker Population Data for Basic Field—Migrant Grants AGENCY:

    Legal Services Corporation.

    ACTION:

    Extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) published in the Federal Register on February 3, 2015, a notice for comment regarding new data from the U.S. Department of Labor regarding agricultural workers and their dependents. LSC is extending the public comment period from March 20 to April 20, 2015, in response to requests for additional time and data.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments must be submitted to Mark Freedman, Senior Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K St. NW., Washington, DC 20007; 202-295-1623 (phone); 202-337-6519 (fax); [email protected] Electronic submissions are preferred via email with attachments in Acrobat PDF format. Written comments sent to any other address or received after the end of the comment period may not be considered by LSC.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Freedman, Senior Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K St. NW., Washington, DC 20007; 202-295-1623 (phone); 202-337-6519 (fax); [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In response to requests for additional time and data, LSC is extending the comment period noticed in the Federal Register on February 3, 2015, 80 FR 5791, from March 20, 2015 to April 20, 2015. In that document, LSC sought comment regarding new data from the U.S. Department of Labor regarding agricultural workers and their dependents. LSC proposes using this data to determine funding levels for Basic Field-Migrant grants and related adjustments to Basic Field—General grants. A description of these data and other related documents is available at: http://www.lsc.gov/about/mattersforcomment.php.

    Dated: March 13, 2015. Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06286 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
    NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY Sunshine Act Meetings TIME AND DATES:

    The Members of the National Council on Disability (NCD) will hold a quarterly meeting on Monday and Tuesday, May 4-5, 2015, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The meeting on May 4 will begin at 9:30 a.m. and conclude at 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, and the meeting on May 5 will begin at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at 12:30 p.m., Eastern Time.

    PLACE:

    This meeting will occur in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and take place at the University of Pittsburgh at the William Pitt Union in the Kurzman Room, 3959 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213. Interested parties are welcome to join in person or by phone in a listening-only capacity (other than the period allotted for by-phone public comment on Tuesday, May 5) using the following call-in number: 1-888-438-5524; Conference ID: 9117323; Conference Title: NCD Meeting; Host Name: Jeff Rosen.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    The Council will release its latest report on transportation; host a “How I Got to Work” symposium of presentations and discussions connecting transportation, asset building, and employment efforts in Pennsylvania; and receive public comment on education-related topics.

    AGENDA:

    The times provided below are approximations for when each agenda item is anticipated to be discussed (all times Eastern):

    Monday, May 4 9:30-10:30 a.m.—NCD Transportation Report Release 10:30-11:30 a.m.—Panel: “We Are the ADA Generation” 11:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m.—Break (1:00-3:00 p.m.—“How I Got to Work” Symposium) 1:00-2:00 p.m.—Panel 1: Transition-age Youth Getting to the Marketplace 2:00-3:00 p.m.—Panel 2: Adults with Disabilities at Work 3:00-3:15 p.m.—Break 3:15-5:00 p.m.—Town Hall: How I Got to Work 5:00 p.m.—Adjournment Tuesday, May 5 9:00-10:15 a.m.—Call to Order and Council Reports 10:15-10:30 a.m.—Break 10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.—Panel: Renewing the Federal Commitment to Students with Disabilities 12:00-12:30 p.m.—Public Comment (Note: Comments received will be limited to those regarding education-related issues) 12:30 p.m.—Adjournment PUBLIC COMMENT:

    To better facilitate NCD's public comment, any individual interested in providing public comment is asked to register his or her intent to provide comment in advance by sending an email to [email protected] with the subject line “Public Comment” with your name, organization, state, and topic of comment included in the body of your email. Full-length written public comments may also be sent to that email address. All emails to register for public comment at the quarterly meeting must be received by Friday, May 1, 2015. Priority will be given to those individuals who are in-person to provide their comments. Those commenters on the phone will be called on according to the list of those registered via email. Due to time constraints, NCD asks all commenters to limit their comments to three minutes.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Anne Sommers, NCD, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004; 202-272-2004 (V), 202-272-2074 (TTY).

    ACCOMMODATIONS:

    A CART streamtext link has been arranged for this teleconference meeting. The web link to access CART on May 4, 2015 is http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=050415ncd0930am; and on May 5, 2015 is http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=050515ncd0900am. Those who plan to attend the meeting in-person and require accommodations should notify NCD as soon as possible to allow time to make arrangements. To help reduce exposure to fragrances for those with multiple chemical sensitivities, NCD requests that all those attending the meeting in person refrain from wearing scented personal care products such as perfumes, hairsprays, and deodorants.

    Dated: March 17, 2015. Rebecca Cokley, Executive Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06481 Filed 3-17-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 8421-03-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    National Science Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Submission for OMB Review; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 1670, and no comments were received. NSF is forwarding the proposed renewal submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance simultaneously with the publication of this second notice. The full submission may be found at: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Comments: 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; or (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for National Science Foundation, 725—17th Street NW. Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, and to Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send email to [email protected] Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling 703-292-7556.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Suzanne H. Plimpton at (703) 292-7556 or send email to [email protected] Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, which is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year (including federal holidays).

    NSF 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.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of Collection: Grantee Reporting Requirements for the Engineering Research Centers (ERCs).

    OMB Number: 3145-0220.

    Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to establish an information collection.

    Abstract:

    Proposed Project: The Engineering Research Centers (ERC) program supports an integrated, interdisciplinary research environment to advance fundamental engineering knowledge and engineered systems; educate a globally competitive and diverse engineering workforce from K-12 on; and join academe and industry in partnership to achieve these goals. ERCs conduct world-class research through partnerships of academic institutions, national laboratories, industrial organizations, and/or other public/private entities. New knowledge thus created is meaningfully linked to society.

    ERCs conduct world-class research with an engineered systems perspective that integrates materials, devices, processes, components, control algorithms and/or other enabling elements to perform a well-defined function. These systems provide a unique academic research and education experience that involves integrative complexity and technological realization. The complexity of the systems perspective includes the factors associated with its use in industry, society/environment, or the human body.

    ERCs enable and foster excellent education, integrate research and education, speed knowledge/technology transfer through partnerships between academe and industry, and prepare a more competitive future workforce. ERCs capitalize on diversity through participation in center activities and demonstrate leadership in the involvement of groups underrepresented in science and engineering.

    Centers will be required to submit annual reports on progress and plans, which will be used as a basis for performance review and determining the level of continued funding. To support this review and the management of a Center, ERCs will also be required to submit management and performance indicators annually to NSF via a data collection Web site that is managed by a technical assistance contractor. These indicators are both quantitative and descriptive and may include, for example, the characteristics of center personnel and students; sources of cash and in-kind support; expenditures by operational component; characteristics of industrial and/or other sector participation; research activities; education activities; knowledge transfer activities; patents, licenses; publications; degrees granted to students involved in Center activities; descriptions of significant advances and other outcomes of the ERC effort. Such reporting requirements will be included in the cooperative agreement which is binding between the academic institution and the NSF.

    Each Center's annual report will address the following categories of activities: (1) Vision and impact, (2) strategic plan, (3) research program, (4) innovation ecosystem and industrial collaboration, (5) education, (6) infrastructure (leadership, management, facilities, diversity) and (7) budget issues.

    For each of the categories the report will describe overall objectives for the year, progress toward center goals, problems the Center has encountered in making progress towards goals and how they were overcome, plans for the future and anticipated research and other barriers to overcome in the following year, and specific outputs and outcomes.

    Use of the Information: The data collected will be used for NSF internal reports, historical data, performance review by peer site visit teams, program level studies and evaluations, and for securing future funding for continued ERC program maintenance and growth.

    Estimate of Burden: 100 hours per center for 17 centers for a total of 1,700 hours.

    Respondents: Academic institutions.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Report: One from each of the 17 ERCs.

    Dated: March 16, 2015. Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06301 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    National Science Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Submission for OMB review; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 1670, and no comments were received. NSF is forwarding the proposed renewal submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance simultaneously with the publication of this second notice. 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; or (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for National Science Foundation, 725-17th Street NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, and to Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send email to [email protected] Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling 703-292-7556.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Suzanne H. Plimpton at (703) 292-7556 or send email to [email protected] Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, which is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year (including federal holidays).

    NSF 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.

    Title: Request for Proposals.

    OMB Control Number: 3145-0080.

    Proposed Project: The Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Subpart 15.2—“Solicitation and Receipt of Proposals and Information” prescribes policies and procedures for preparing and issuing Requests for Proposals. The FAR System has been developed in accordance with the requirement of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act of 1974, as amended. The NSF Act of 1950, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1870, Sec. II, states that NSF has the authority to:

    (c) Enter into contracts or other arrangements, or modifications thereof, for the carrying on, by organizations or individuals in the United States and foreign countries, including other government agencies of the United States and of foreign countries, of such scientific or engineering activities as the Foundation deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act, and, at the request of the Secretary of Defense, specific scientific or engineering activities in connection with matters relating to international cooperation or national security, and, when deemed appropriate by the Foundation, such contracts or other arrangements or modifications thereof, may be entered into without legal consideration, without performance or other bonds and without regard to section 5 of title 41, U.S.C.

    Use of the Information: Request for Proposals (RFP) is used to competitively solicit proposals in response to NSF need for services. Impact will be on those individuals or organizations who elect to submit proposals in response to the RFP. Information gathered will be evaluated in light of NSF procurement requirements to determine who will be awarded a contract.

    Estimate of Burden: The Foundation estimates that, on average, 558 hours per respondent will be required to complete the RFP.

    Respondents: Individuals; business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; Federal government; state, local, or tribal governments.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 75.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 41,850 hours.

    Dated: March 16, 2015. Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06300 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Advisory Committee for Engineering; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

    Name: Advisory Committee for Engineering #1170.

    Date/Time: April 15, 2015: 12:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; April 16, 2015: 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1235, Arlington, Virginia 22230.

    Type of Meeting: open.

    Contact Person: Evette Rollins, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 505, Arlington, Virginia 22230; 703-292-8300.

    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice, recommendations and counsel on major goals and policies pertaining to engineering programs and activities.

    Agenda:

    Wednesday, April 15, 2015 • Directorate for Engineering Report • Electrical, Communications, and Cyber Systems (ECCS) Overview • ECCS Committee of Visitors (COV) Report • Broadening Participation in Engineering Thursday, April 16, 2015 • Perspectives from the Office of the Director • Emerging Frontiers of Research and Innovation (EFRI) Overview • EFRI Committee of Visitors (COV) Report • Roundtable on ENG Strategic Activities and Recommendations Dated: March 13, 2015. Suzanne Plimpton, Acting, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06238 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 070-3103; NRC-2013-0044] URENCO USA, Uranium Enrichment Facility AGENCY:

    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering approval of the URENCO USA (UUSA) license amendment request 12-10 (LAR-12-10) that would authorize capacity expansion of the UUSA enrichment facility near Eunice, New Mexico. In addition the NRC is considering approval of related UUSA license amendment requests that would authorize increases in the mass possession limits for natural, depleted, and enriched uranium; and would authorize use of a modified enrichment process to utilize depleted uranium as the feed material.

    DATES:

    The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact referenced in this document is available on March 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0044 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0044. Address questions about NRC dockets to Ms. 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] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced.

    • NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Asimios Malliakos, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6458; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Introduction

    The NRC is considering approval of the UUSA LAR-12-10 (a publicly-available version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12319A591), and UUSA's supplemental license amendment request (ADAMS Accession No. ML14171A092). The NRC's approval would authorize capacity expansion of the UUSA enrichment facility that operates near Eunice, New Mexico. LAR-12-10 and the supplemental request were submitted by URENCO USA (formerly Louisiana Energy Services, LLC), requesting amendment of its special nuclear material (SNM) License SNM-2010, under which UUSA operates its gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility. The NRC's approval would increase the authorized mass possession limits for natural, depleted, and enriched uranium, and would authorize use of a modified enrichment process to utilize depleted uranium as the feed material. The NRC staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) (ADAMS Accession No. ML15072A016) of the proposed actions, in accordance with the requirements in Part 51 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). Both LAR-12-10 and UUSA's June 2014, supplemental license amendment request were considered in the EA prepared by the NRC staff.

    The NRC staff's safety evaluation of the proposed actions will be documented in a separate Safety Evaluation Report (SER). If the proposed actions are approved, the NRC will issue to UUSA an amended SNM-2010 license following the publication of this notice, and the amended license will be made publicly available.

    II. Environmental Assessment

    On September 10, 2012, UUSA submitted an Environmental Report (ER) (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML12262A539 and ML12262A540) that forms a basis for the NRC's EA of the proposed actions. On November 9, 2012, UUSA submitted the associated LAR-12-10 to expand the production capacity of the UUSA facility. Subsequent to LAR-12-10, UUSA submitted a supplemental license amendment request on June 17, 2014. The June 2014 submittal requested an increase in the authorized mass possession limits for natural, depleted, and enriched uranium. In addition, the June 2014 submittal requested authorization to use a modified enrichment process that would utilize depleted uranium instead of natural uranium as the feed material.

    The NRC staff has assessed the potential environmental impacts associated with the 2012 and 2014 license amendment requests, as well as the no action alternative, and has documented the results in the EA. The NRC staff performed its environmental review in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR part 51. In addition to the ER, the NRC staff also considered information received from a request for additional information (RAI); communications with the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO); the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish; information gathered from an NRC site visit; consultation with Native American Tribes, local governments and agencies officials; as well as information from independent analysis.

    In the EA, the NRC staff evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no action alternative on the affected environment. The resource areas evaluated include: land use; historical and cultural resources; visual and scenic resources; climatology, meteorology, and air quality; geology, minerals, and soils; water resources; ecological resources; socioeconomics; environmental justice; noise; transportation; public and occupational health and safety; and waste management.

    Additionally, the NRC staff analyzed the potential cumulative impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions when combined with the environmental impacts from the proposed action. The NRC staff concluded that there would not be significant adverse cumulative impacts to any resource area.

    Based on its review of the proposed action relative to the requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 51, the NRC staff has determined that the amendment to NRC License SNM-2010, authorizing capacity expansion of UUSA's uranium enrichment facility near Eunice, New Mexico, would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

    III. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

    Based on its review of the proposed action, in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR part 51, the NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of March, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Marissa G. Bailey, Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety, Safeguards, and Environmental Review, Office of Nuclear Material Safety, and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06334 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting on April 9-11, 2015, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

    Thursday, April 9, 2015, Conference Room T2-B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland

    8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman (Open)—The ACRS Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting.

    8:35 a.m.-10:30 a.m.: Topical Report NEDE-33766P, “GEH Simplified Stability Solution (GS3)” (Open/Closed)—The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the staff and GE-Hitachi regarding the review of the GS3 topical report.

    Note:

    A portion of this meeting may be closed in order to discuss and protect information designated as proprietary, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).

    10:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m.: Draft Proposed Rulemaking for Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events (Open)—The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the staff regarding the draft proposed rulemaking package in support of mitigation of beyond-design-basis events that would, among other things, make generically applicable Order EA-12-049.

    2:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open/Closed)—The Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports on matters discussed during this meeting.

    Note:

    A portion of this meeting may be closed in order to discuss and protect information designated as proprietary, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).

    Friday, April 10, 2015, Conference Room T2-B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland

    8:30 a.m.-10:00 a.m.: Future ACRS Activities/Report of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee (Open/Closed)—The Committee will discuss the recommendations of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee regarding items proposed for consideration by the Full Committee during future ACRS Meetings, and matters related to the conduct of ACRS business, including anticipated workload and member assignments. [Note: A portion of this meeting may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.]

    10:00 a.m.-10:15 a.m.: Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and Recommendations (Open)—The Committee will discuss the responses from the NRC Executive Director for Operations to comments and recommendations included in recent ACRS reports and letters.

    10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.: Development of Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) in Support of Order EA-13-109 (Reliable Hardened Vents) (Open)—The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the staff regarding development of ISG in Support of Order EA-13-109.

    2:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open/Closed)—The Committee will continue its discussion of proposed ACRS reports on matters discussed during this meeting.

    Note:

    A portion of this meeting may be closed in order to discuss and protect information designated as proprietary, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).

    Saturday, April 11, 2015, Conference Room T2-B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland

    8:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open/Closed)—The Committee will continue its discussion of proposed ACRS reports. Note: A portion of this meeting may be closed in order to discuss and protect information designated as proprietary, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).

    11:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.: Miscellaneous (Open)—The Committee will continue its discussion related to the conduct of Committee activities and specific issues that were not completed during previous meetings.

    Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the Federal Register on October 13, 2014 (79 FR 59307-59308). In accordance with those procedures, oral or written views may be presented by members of the public, including representatives of the nuclear industry. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify Quynh Nguyen, Cognizant ACRS Staff (Telephone: 301-415-5844, Email: [email protected]), five days before the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made to allow necessary time during the meeting for such statements. In view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with the Cognizant ACRS staff if such rescheduling would result in major inconvenience.

    Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided 30 minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the Cognizant ACRS Staff one day before meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the Cognizant ACRS Staff with a CD containing each presentation at least 30 minutes before the meeting.

    In accordance with Subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92-463 and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), certain portions of the April 9-11th meeting may be closed, as specifically noted above. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the Chairman. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting.

    ACRS meeting agendas, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room at [email protected], or by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from the Publicly Available Records System (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html or http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ACRS/.

    Video teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. (ET), at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of March 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06333 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    PACIFIC NORTHWEST ELECTRIC POWER AND CONSERVATION PLANNING COUNCIL Amended Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program AGENCY:

    Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Council (Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Council), an interstate compact agency organized under the authority of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, 16 U.S.C. 839 et seq. (Northwest Power Act).

    ACTION:

    Notice of final action adopting the amended Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to Section 4(h) of the Northwest Power Act, the Council has amended its Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (program). The final amended program may be found on the Council's Web site at http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/2014F&WProgram/.

    BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Section 4(h) of the Northwest Power Act, in March 2013 the Northwest Power and Conservation Council requested in writing that state and federal fish and wildlife agencies, Indian tribes, and others submit recommendations for amendments to the Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. The Council received over 1500 pages of recommendations and supporting information from 68 entities and 412 individuals. The Council subsequently received extensive written public comment on the program amendment recommendations.

    In May 2014, after reviewing the recommendations, the supporting information, the comments received on the recommendations, and other information in the administrative record, the Council released for public review a draft revised program. The Council received over 1500 pages of substantial written comments on the draft amendments. The Council also took oral testimony at ten public hearings around the region and at regularly scheduled Council meetings. Transcripts of these hearings are in the administrative record along with the written comments. As specified in Section 4(h)(5), the Council also held a number of consultations on the recommendations and draft amendments with representatives of state and federal fish and wildlife agencies, Indian tribes, federal hydrosystem agencies, and customers of the Bonneville Power Administration. Notes from these consultations are also in the administrative record. Relevant documents from the program amendment process, including the recommendations, draft program amendments and comments, may be found on the Council's Web site at http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/program/2014/.

    Following this public review process required by the Northwest Power Act, and after deliberations in public over the course of several Council meetings, the Council adopted the final revised program in October 2014 at a regularly scheduled Council meeting in Pendleton, Oregon. The Council based its decisions on the recommendations, supporting documents, and views and information obtained through public comment and participation and consultation with the agencies, tribes, and customers. In the final step of this program amendment process, at its regularly scheduled March 2015 meeting in Eugene, Oregon, the Council adopted written findings as part of the program explaining its disposition of program amendment recommendations along with responses to comments received on the program amendment recommendations and on the draft amended program. The findings and responses have been made part of the program as Appendix S.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Please visit the Council's Web site at www.nwcouncil.org or contact the Council at (503) 222-5161 or toll free (800) 452-5161.

    Stephen L. Crow, Executive Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06299 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    POSTAL SERVICE Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors; Sunshine Act Meeting TIME AND DATE:

    March 11, 2015, at 4:30 p.m.

    PLACE:

    Washington, DC, via Teleconference.

    STATUS:

    Committee Votes to Close March 11, 2015, Meeting: By telephone vote on March 11, 2015, members of the Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service met and voted unanimously to close to public observation its meeting held in Washington, DC, via teleconference. The Committee determined that no earlier public notice was possible.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Wednesday, March 11, 2015, at 4:30 p.m.

    1. Pricing.

    General Counsel Certification: The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that the meeting was properly closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Julie S. Moore, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC, 20260-1000, telephone (202) 268-4800.

    Julie S. Moore, Secretary, Board of Governors.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06372 Filed 3-17-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-2736. Extension: Rules 17Ad-6 and 17Ad-7. SEC File No. 270-151, OMB Control No. 3235-0291.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for approval of extension of the existing collection of information provided for in the following rules: Rule 17Ad-6 (17 CFR 240.17Ad-6) and Rule 17Ad-7 (17 CFR 240.17Ad-7) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (“Exchange Act”).

    Rule 17Ad-6 under the Exchange Act requires every registered transfer agent to make and keep current records about a variety of information, such as: (1) Specific operational data regarding the time taken to perform transfer agent activities (to ensure compliance with the minimum performance standards in Rule 17Ad-2 (17 CFR 240.17Ad-2)); (2) written inquiries and requests by shareholders and broker-dealers and response time thereto; (3) resolutions, contracts, or other supporting documents concerning the appointment or termination of the transfer agent; (4) stop orders or notices of adverse claims to the securities; and (5) all canceled registered securities certificates.

    Rule 17Ad-7 under the Exchange Act requires each registered transfer agent to retain the records specified in Rule 17Ad-6 in an easily accessible place for a period of six months to six years, depending on the type of record or document. Rule 17Ad-7 also specifies the manner in which records may be maintained using electronic, microfilm, and microfiche storage methods.

    These recordkeeping requirements are designed to ensure that all registered transfer agents are maintaining the records necessary for transfer agents to monitor and keep control over their own performance and for the Commission to adequately examine registered transfer agents on an historical basis for compliance with applicable rules.

    The Commission estimates that approximately 429 registered transfer agents will spend a total of 214,500 hours per year complying with Rules 17Ad-6 and 17Ad-7 (500 hours per year per transfer agent).

    The retention period under Rule 17Ad-7 for the recordkeeping requirements under Rule 17Ad-6 is six months to six years, depending on the particular record or document. The recordkeeping and retention requirements under Rules 17Ad-6 and 17Ad-7 are mandatory to assist the Commission and other regulatory agencies with monitoring transfer agents and ensuring compliance with the rules. These rules do not involve the collection of confidential information.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to: [email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an email to: [email protected]. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: March 13, 2015. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06316 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74505; File No. SR-ISEGemini-2015-06] Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees March 13, 2015.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on March 2, 2015, ISE Gemini, LLC (the “Exchange” or “ISE Gemini”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change, as described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    ISE Gemini proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees as described in more detail below. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees to increase Priority Customer 3 rebates in Penny Symbols 4 and SPY as well as related fees for non-Priority Customer orders trading against Priority Customer orders in these symbols.

    3 A “Priority Customer” is a person or entity that is not a broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s), as defined in Rule 100(a)(37A).

    4 “Penny Symbols” are options overlying all symbols listed on ISE Gemini that are in the Penny Pilot Program.

    Currently, Priority Customer orders that add liquidity on ISE Gemini are provided a maker rebate in Penny Symbols and SPY of $0.25 per contract for Tier 1,5 $0.40 per contract for Tier 2, $0.46 per contract for Tier 3, $0.48 per contract for Tier 4, and $0.50 per contract for Tier 5. In order to incentivize members to bring their Priority Customer orders to ISE Gemini, the Exchange now proposes to provide higher maker rebates to members that achieve Tier 3 or higher. In particular, the Exchange proposes to increase the Priority Customer rebate in Penny Symbols and SPY to $0.48 per contract for Tier 3, $0.50 per contract for Tier 4, and $0.52 per contract for Tier 5.

    5 This rebate is $0.32 per contract for members that execute a Priority Customer Maker ADV of 5,000 to 19,999 contracts in a given month.

    Market Maker,6 Non-ISE Gemini Market Maker,7 Firm Proprietary 8 /Broker-Dealer,9 and Professional Customer 10 (i.e. non-Priority Customer) orders currently pay a taker fee of $0.49 per contract, subject to a discount to $0.48 per contract for Market Makers that achieve the highest tier. In connection with the increased Priority Customer rebates described above, the Exchange further proposes to charge non-Priority Customer orders a taker fee of $0.50 per contract when trading against a Priority Customer order.11

    6 The term Market Maker refers to “Competitive Market Makers” and “Primary Market Makers” collectively. See Rule 100(a)(25).

    7 A “Non-ISE Gemini Market Maker” is a market maker as defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, registered in the same options class on another options exchange.

    8 A “Firm Proprietary” order is an order submitted by a member for its own proprietary account.

    9 A “Broker-Dealer” order is an order submitted by a member for a broker-dealer account that is not its own proprietary account.

    10 A “Professional Customer” is a person or entity that is not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer.

    11 The Exchange notes that there will be no Tier 5 Market Maker discount when trading against a Priority Customer.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,12 in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,13 in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.

    12 15 U.S.C. 78f.

    13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to increase the rebates offered to Priority Customer orders in Penny Symbols and SPY, as the proposed change is designed to attract additional Priority Customer volume to the Exchange. The Exchange already provides enhanced rebates for Priority Customer orders, and believes that further increasing the rebates will incentivize members to send additional Priority Customer order flow to ISE Gemini, creating additional liquidity to the benefit of all members that trade on the Exchange. The Exchange further believes that it is reasonable and equitable to increase the fee charged to non-Priority Customers that trade against a Priority Customer order as this change is designed to offset the enhanced rebates offered to incentivize the other side of the trade. As explained above, the Exchange believes that all members will benefit from the additional liquidity created by the higher Priority Customer rebates. Furthermore, the proposed taker fee for non-Priority Customer orders trading against a Priority Customer is within the range of fees charged by other options exchanges, including the BOX Options Exchange (“BOX”), which charges as much as $0.59 per contract for non-customer orders in penny pilot symbols that trade against a public customer.14

    14See BOX Fee Schedule, Section 1, Exchange Fees, A. Non-Auction Transactions.

    In addition, while the Exchange is increasing Priority Customer rebates as well as corresponding fees for non-Priority Customers trading against Priority Customer orders, the Exchange does not believe that these proposed changes are unfairly discriminatory. As has historically been the case, Priority Customer orders remain entitled to more favorable fees and rebates than other market participants in order to encourage this order flow. A Priority Customer is by definition not a broker or dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). This limitation does not apply to participants whose behavior is substantially similar to that of market professionals, including Professional Customers, who will generally submit a higher number of orders (many of which do not result in executions) than Priority Customers.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,15 the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes to fees and rebates in Penny Symbols and SPY are designed to attract additional order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees and rebates are competitive with fees and rebates offered to orders executed on other options exchanges. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct their order flow to competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes reflect this competitive environment.

    15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,16 and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,17 because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by ISE Gemini.

    16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

    17 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-ISEGemini-2015-06 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISEGemini-2015-06. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISEGemini-2015-06, and should be submitted on or before April 9, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.18

    18 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06263 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74507; File Nos. SR-NYSE-2011-55; SR-NYSEAmex-2011-84] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE MKT LLC; Order Granting an Extension to Limited Exemptions From Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS in Connection With the Exchanges' Retail Liquidity Programs Until September 30, 2015 March 13, 2015.

    On July 3, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) issued an order pursuant to its authority under Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS (“Sub-Penny Rule”) 1 that granted the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) and NYSE MKT LLC 2 (“NYSE MKT” and, together with NYSE, the “Exchanges”) limited exemptions from the Sub-Penny Rule in connection with the operation of the Exchanges' respective Retail Liquidity Programs (the “Programs”).3 The limited exemptions were granted concurrently with the Commission's approval of the Exchanges' proposals to adopt their respective Programs for one-year pilot terms.4 The exemptions were granted coterminous with the effectiveness of the pilot Programs; both the pilot Programs and exemptions are scheduled to expire on March 31, 2015.5

    1 17 CFR 242.612(c).

    2 At the time it filed the original proposal to adopt the Retail Liquidity Program, NYSE MKT went by the name NYSE Amex LLC. On May 14, 2012, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change, immediately effective upon filing, to change its name from NYSE Amex LLC to NYSE MKT LLC. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67037 (May 21, 2012), 77 FR 31415 (May 25, 2012) (SR-NYSEAmex-2012-32).

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67347 (July 3, 2012), 77 FR 40673 (July 10, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2011-55; SR-NYSEAmex-2011-84) (“Order”).

    4See id.

    5 The pilot term of the Programs was originally scheduled to end on July 31, 2013, but the Exchanges initially extended the term for an additional year, through July 31, 2014, see Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70096 (August 2, 2013), 78 FR 48520 (August 8, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-48), and 70100 (August 2, 2013), 78 FR 48535 (August 8, 2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-60), and then subsequently extended the term again through March 31, 2015, see Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 72629 (July 16, 2014), 79 FR 42564 (July 22, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-35), and 72625 (July 16, 2014), 79 FR 42566 (July 22, 2014) (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-60). Each time the pilot term of the Programs was extended, the Commission granted the Exchanges' requests to also extend the Sub-Penny Exemption through July 31, 2014, see Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70085 (July 31, 2013), 78 FR 47807 (August 6, 2013), and March 31, 2015, see Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72732 (July 31, 2014), 79 FR 45851 (August 6, 2014), respectively.

    The Exchanges now seek to extend the exemptions until September 30, 2015.6 The Exchanges' request was made in conjunction with immediately effective filings that extend the operation of the Programs through the same date.7 In their request to extend the exemptions, the Exchanges note that the participation in the Programs has increased more recently. Accordingly, the Exchanges have asked for additional time to allow themselves and the Commission to analyze more robust data concerning the Programs, which the Exchanges committed to provide to the Commission.8 For this reason and the reasons stated in the Order originally granting the limited exemptions, the Commission finds that extending the exemptions, pursuant to its authority under Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS, is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors.

    6See Letter from Martha Redding, Senior Counsel, NYSE, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, dated February 27, 2015.

    7See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 34-74454 (March 6, 2015), 80 FR 13054 (March 12, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-10), and 34-74455 (March 6, 2015), 80 FR 13047 (March 12, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-14).

    8See Order, supra note 3, 77 FR at 40681.

    Therefore, it is hereby ordered that, pursuant to Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS, each Exchange is granted a limited exemption from Rule 612 of Regulation NMS that allows it to accept and rank orders priced equal to or greater than $1.00 per share in increments of $0.001, in connection with the operation of its Retail Liquidity Program, until September 30, 2015.

    The limited and temporary exemptions extended by this Order are subject to modification or revocation if at any time the Commission determines that such action is necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Responsibility for compliance with any applicable provisions of the Federal securities laws must rest with the persons relying on the exemptions that are the subject of this Order.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.9

    9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(83).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06265 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74496; File No. SR-MIAX-2015-03] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Order Granting Approval to Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Adopt a “Risk Protection Monitor” Functionality Under Proposed MIAX Rule 519A and Amend the “Aggregate Risk Monitor” Functionality Under MIAX Rule 612 March 13, 2015. I. Introduction

    On January 8, 2015, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (“MIAX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to establish a voluntary Risk Protection Monitor functionality for orders (the “RPM”) and codify existing functionality regarding the Exchange's Aggregate Risk Manager for quotes (the “ARM”). On January 20, 2105, the Exchange filed Amendment No.1 to the proposal.3 The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the Federal Register on January 28, 2015.4 The Commission did not receive any comments on the proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange proposed changes to the Form 19b-4, Exhibit 1, and Exhibit 5 to clarify that once triggered, the Risk Protection Monitor described therein will apply to orders in all series in all classes of options from the Exchange Member.

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74118 (January 22, 2015), 80 FR 4605 (“Notice”).

    II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes new MIAX Rule 519A to establish a voluntary RPM that will be available to all MIAX members. The Exchange also proposes clarifying amendments to current MIAX Rule 612, which describes the Exchange's ARM functionality that is applicable to quoting activity by MIAX Market Makers.

    A. Risk Protection Monitor

    According to the Exchange, the RPM is intended to provide new risk protection functionality for orders entered by members. Under new MIAX Rule 519A, MIAX's automated trading system (the “System”) will maintain a counting program (the “counting program”) for each participating member. Member participation in the counting program will be voluntary. The counting program will count (i) the number of orders entered by the member on the Exchange within a specified time period that has been established by the member (the “specified time period”), and (ii) the number of contracts traded via an order entered by the member on the Exchange within the specified time period.5 The Exchange will establish a maximum duration for any specified time period and announce that maximum duration via a Regulatory Circular. To use the RPM functionality, members must establish an Allowable Order Rate and/or an Allowable Contract Execution Rate. The Allowable Order Rate is the maximum number of permissible orders (as specified by the member) entered during the specified time period designated by the member. The Allowable Contract Execution Rate is the maximum number of permissible contracts (as specified by the member) executed during the specified time period designated by the member.

    5 In its filing, the Exchange noted that members may establish different specified time periods for the purpose of counting orders and the purpose of counting contracts traded via an order entered by the member under the RPM, and thus, the length of the specified time period for each purpose need not be the same. See Notice, supra note 4, at 4605 n.7.

    If the RPM functionality is elected by a member, the System will trigger the RPM whenever the counting program determines that the member has entered a number of orders that exceeds the member's specified Allowable Order Rate during the specified time period, or executed a number of contracts that exceeds the member's specified Allowable Contract Execution Rate during the specified time period.6

    6 In the Notice, the Exchange provided examples demonstrating how the System will determine when the Allowable Order Rate or Allowable Contract Execution Rate for an individual member is exceeded. See Notice, supra note 4, at 4606-07.

    Under new MIAX Rule 519A, a member may establish whether the RPM, once triggered, will: (i) Prevent the System from receiving any new orders in all series in all classes from the member; (ii) prevent the System from receiving any new orders in all series in all classes from the member and cancel all existing Day orders in all series in all classes from the member; or (iii) send a notification that the RPM has been triggered without any further preventative actions or cancellations by the System. Once engaged, the RPM will automatically take whatever action has been specified in advance by the member. However, PRIME Orders, PRIME Solicitation Orders, Auction or Cancel Orders (“AOC Order”), Opening Orders (“OPG Order”), or Good `til Cancel Orders (“GTC Order”) will not participate in the RPM. 7 When engaged, the RPM will allow the member to interact with existing orders that were entered prior to the member exceeding the Allowable Order Rate or the Allowable Contract Execution Rate, including sending cancel order messages and receiving trade executions from those orders. The RPM will remain engaged until the member communicates with the Exchange's help desk (the “Help Desk”) to re-enable the System to accept new orders from the member. The Exchange noted that this communication from the member to the Help Desk may be sent either via email or phone.8

    7 Interpretation and Policy .02 to new MIAX Rule 519A provides that PRIME Orders, PRIME Solicitation Orders, and GTC Orders will not participate in the RPM. The System will include PRIME Orders, PRIME Solicitation Orders, and GTC Orders in the counting program for purposes determining when the RPM is triggered. PRIME Orders, PRIME Solicitation Orders and Customer-to-Customer Orders will each be counted as two orders for the purpose of calculating the Allowable Order Rate. Once engaged, however, the RPM will not cancel any existing PRIME Orders, PRIME Solicitation Orders, AOC Orders, OPG Orders, or GTC Orders that are marked as Day orders.

    8See Notice, supra note 4, at 4606 n.10.

    In addition, the Exchange also proposes to allow members to group with other members so that the RPM would apply collectively to the group. The members in such a group must designate a group owner and may form a group together if: (i) There is at least 75% common ownership between the group's members, as reflected on each firm's Form BD, Schedule A; or (ii) there is written authorization signed by all members in the group, and the group owner maintains exclusive control of all orders sent to the Exchange from each MPID within the group. A clearing firm also may elect to group together with several members so that the RPM applies collectively to that group of members, provided that: (i) The clearing firm must be designated as the group owner; (ii) the clearing firm must serve as the clearing firm for all the MPIDs of the group; and (iii) there must be written authorization signed by the clearing firm and each member of the group.

    In general, the RPM for groups will operate in the same manner as it does for individual members, except that that the counting program and RPM protections will apply to the group as a whole. Thus, the counting program will count the number of orders entered and the number of contracts traded resulting from orders entered by all MPIDs in the group collectively, and the System will trigger the RPM when the group collectively exceeds either the Allowable Order Rate or Allowable Contract Execution Rate for the group.9 Once engaged, pursuant to the group owner's instructions, the RPM will automatically either: (i) Prevent the System from receiving any new orders in all series in all classes from each MPID in the group; (ii) prevent the System from receiving any new orders in all series in all classes from each MPID in the group and cancel all existing Day orders in all series in all classes from the group, or (iii) send a notification without any further preventative action or cancellations by the System. Only the designated group owner may re-enable the acceptance of new orders for all the members of the group, via a request to the Help Desk. In instances when a clearing firm has grouped several members for the purpose of the RPM, the clearing firm may only elect to receive warning notifications indicating that a specific percentage of an Allowable Order Rate or an Allowable Contract Execution Rate has been met, unless one member of the group maintains exclusive control of all orders routed through all MPIDs within the group.

    9 In the Notice, the Exchange provided examples demonstrating how the System will determine when the Allowable Order Rate or Allowable Contract Execution Rate is exceeded for a group. See Notice, supra note 4, at 4608.

    In addition, members may elect to receive warning notifications from MIAX indicating that a specific percentage of an Allowable Order Rate or an Allowable Contract Execution Rate has been met. The Exchange also proposes that, at the request of a member, or if necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market, the Help Desk may pause and restart the specified time period used by the counting program or clear and reset any calculated Allowable Order Rate or Allowable Contract Execution Rate.

    B. Aggregate Risk Manager

    The Exchange also proposes to codify what it represents is existing functionality regarding the ARM under MIAX Rule 612.10 Under MIAX Rule 612, the System maintains a counting program for each Market Maker who is required to submit continuous two-sided quotations pursuant to MIAX Rule 604 in each of its assigned option classes. The ARM counting program counts the number of contracts traded by a Market Maker's quotes in an assigned option class within a specified time period that has been established by the Market Maker; MIAX Rule 612 states that the specified time period for the ARM cannot exceed 15 seconds. Under the ARM, a Market Maker also establishes for each option class an Allowable Engagement Percentage. The System engages the ARM in a particular option class when the counting program has determined that a Market Maker has traded during the specified time period a number of contracts equal to or above its Allowable Engagement Percentage.11 Once engaged, the ARM automatically removes the Market Maker's quotations on MIAX in all series of that particular option class until the Market Maker submits a new revised quotation.

    10See Notice, supra note 4, at 4609.

    11 The Allowable Engagement Percentage cannot be less than 100%. The System calculates the Allowable Engagement Percentage by first determining the percentage that the number of contracts executed in an individual option in a class represents relative to the Market Maker's disseminated Standard quote and/or Day eQuote in that individual option (“option percentage”). See MIAX Rule 612(b)(2)(i). When the System calculates the option percentage, the number of contracts executed in that option class will be automatically offset by the number of contracts that are executed on the opposite side of the market in the same option class during the specified time period. See MIAX Rule 612(b)(3). The counting program will then combine the individual option percentages to determine the option class percentage (“class percentage”). See MIAX Rule 612(b)(2)(ii). When the class percentage equals or exceeds the Market Maker's Allowable Engagement Percentage, the ARM will be triggered. See id.

    The Exchange proposes to amend MIAX Rule 612 in two regards. First, the Exchange proposes to codify in its rules an existing requirement for a Market Maker to send a message to MIAX specifically to disengage the ARM and allow quoting before the Market Maker can begin to quote again in that class. As noted above, MIAX Rule 612 currently provides that once engaged, the ARM will automatically remove the Market Maker's quotations from MIAX in all series of that particular option class until the Market Maker submits a new revised quotation. The Exchange proposes to add rule text to MIAX Rule 612(b)(1) requiring a Market Maker also to send a notification to the System of its intent to reengage quoting in order to disengage the ARM. Second, the Exchange proposes to clarify, in new Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 612, that eQuotes 12 do not participate in the ARM. The Exchange states that the System does not include contracts traded through the use of an eQuote in the counting program for purposes of Rule 612, and that eQuotes will remain in the System available for trading when the Aggregate Risk Manager is engaged.13

    12 An eQuote “is a quote with a specific time in force that does not automatically cancel and replace a previous Standard quote or eQuote,” and “can be cancelled by the Market Maker at any time, or can be replaced by another eQuote that contains specific instructions to cancel an existing eQuote.” See MIAX Rule 517(a)(2).

    13See Notice, supra note 4, at 4609.

    III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange.14 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,15 which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission believes that the RPM may help members, and member groups, to mitigate the potential risks associated with the execution of an unacceptable level of orders that result from, e.g., technology issues with electronic trading systems. The Commission also notes that other exchanges have established risk protection mechanisms for members and/or market makers that are similar in many respects to MIAX's proposal.16 While the concept of member groups may be unique to MIAX's proposal, the Commission believes that MIAX has designed that portion of the proposed rule to be consistent with the Act, including section 6(b)(5), as it may foster cooperation and coordination with clearing transactions and protect investors and the public interest by providing a mechanism to reduce the risk of abnormal trading activity across multiple participants under common control or where the group otherwise provides written opt-in consent.

    14 15 U.S.C. 78f. In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    16See, e.g., BATS Exchange (“BATS”) Rule 21.16 (Risk Monitor Mechanism available to all BATS Users); NASDAQ Options Market (“NOM”) Rule Chapter VI, Section 19 (Risk Monitor Mechanism available to all NOM Participants); BOX Options Exchange Rule 7280 (Bulk Cancellation of Trading Interest available to Options Participants); and Chicago Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”) Rule 8.18 (Quote Risk Monitor Mechanism available to certain CBOE Market-Makers and CBOE Trading Permit Holders associated with certain CBOE Market-Makers).

    The Commission notes that the RPM is a voluntary mechanism. The Commission reminds members electing to use the RPM to be mindful of their obligations to, among other things, seek best execution of orders they handle on an agency basis. A broker-dealer has a legal duty to seek to obtain best execution of customer orders, and the decision to utilize the RPM, including the parameters set by the member for the RPM, must be consistent with this duty.17 For instance, under the proposal, members have unfettered discretion to set the Allowable Order Rate and Allowable Contract Execution Rate for the RPM. While MIAX neglected to affirmatively establish minimum and maximum permissible settings for the RPM in its rule, the Commission expects MIAX periodically to assess whether the RPM functionality is operating in a manner that is consistent with the promotion of fair and orderly markets. In addition, the Commission expects that members will consider their best execution obligations when establishing the minimum and maximum parameters for the RPM.18 For example, an abnormally low Allowable Order Rate set over an abnormally long specified time period should be carefully scrutinized, particularly if a member's order flow to MIAX contains agency orders. To the extent that the RPM is set to overly-sensitive parameters, a member should consider the effect of its chosen settings on its ability to receive a timely execution on marketable agency orders that it sends to MIAX in various market conditions.19 The Commission cautions that brokers considering their best execution obligations should be aware that the agency orders they represent may be rejected on account of the RPM.

    17See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 37619A (Sept. 6, 1996), 61 FR 48290 (Sept. 12, 1996) (“Order Handling Rules Release”); 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, 37537-8 (June 29, 2005).

    18 The Commission reminds broker-dealers that they must examine their procedures for seeking to obtain best execution in light of market and technology changes and modify those practices if necessary to enable their customers to obtain the best reasonably available prices. See Order Handling Rules Release, supra note 17, at 48323.

    19 For example, a marketable agency order that would have otherwise executed on MIAX might be prevented from reaching MIAX on account of other interest from the member that causes it to exceed its Allowable Order Rate and, thus, triggers the RPM, resulting in the System blocking new orders from the member.

    In addition, under the proposal, once the RPM is engaged, PRIME Orders, PRIME Solicitation Orders, GTC Orders, AOC Orders, and OPG Orders will not participate in the RPM.20 The Commission notes that these are unique order types.21 The Commission believes that these exceptions appear to be reasonably designed to not interfere with the operation of the PRIME and PRIME Solicitation auctions and also to restrict application of the RPM to specific types of orders, whose terms limit their application to specialized purposes for which members may not want or need order protection to apply.

    20See supra note 7.

    21 For example, the Exchange argues that PRIME Orders submitted pursuant to MIAX Rule 515A have been guaranteed an execution at the time of acceptance into the System and, therefore, should not be cancelled when the RPM is engaged, because the execution has effectively already occurred. See Notice, supra note 4, at 4609.

    The proposed rule change also codifies existing functionality in the ARM with respect to the procedures for resuming quoting and the non-participation of eQuotes. The Commission notes that the clarification of ARM procedures in Rule 612 could eliminate potential confusion for members regarding the need to affirmatively notify MIAX that the member wishes to re-start quoting following an ARM event as well as internal inconsistency in the rule about the inapplicability of ARM to eQuotes.

    IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,22 that the proposed rule change (SR-MIAX-2015-03), as modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.

    22 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.23

    23 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06262 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-2736. Extension: Rule 11a1-1(T). SEC File No. 270-428, OMB Control No. 3235-0478.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for approval of extension of the previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule 11a1-1(T) (17 CFR 240.11a1-1(T)), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (“Exchange Act”).

    On January 27, 1976, the Commission adopted Rule 11a1-1(T), to exempt certain transactions of exchange members for their own accounts that would otherwise be prohibited under Section 11(a) of the Exchange Act. The rule provides that a member's proprietary order may be executed on the exchange of which the trader is a member, if, among other things: (1) The member discloses that a bid or offer for its account is for its account to any member with whom such bid or offer is placed or to whom it is communicated; (2) any such member through whom that bid or offer is communicated discloses to others participating in effecting the order that it is for the account of a member; and (3) immediately before executing the order, a member (other than a specialist in such security) presenting any order for the account of a member on the exchange clearly announces or otherwise indicates to the specialist and to other members then present that he is presenting an order for the account of a member.

    Without these requirements, it would not be possible for the Commission to monitor its mandate under the Exchange Act to promote fair and orderly markets and ensure that exchange members have, as the principal purpose of their exchange memberships, the conduct of a public securities business.

    There are approximately 663 respondents that require an aggregate total of 19 hours to comply with this rule. Each of these approximately 663 respondents makes an estimated 20 annual responses, for an aggregate of 13,260 responses per year. Each response takes approximately 5 seconds to complete. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 19 hours (13,260 × 5 seconds/60 seconds per minute/60 minutes per hour = 19 hours). The approximate cost per hour is $323, resulting in a total cost of compliance for the annual burden of $6,137 (19 hours @$323).

    Compliance with Rule 11a-1(T) is necessary for exchange members to make transactions for their own accounts under a specific exemption from the general prohibition of such transactions under Section 11(a) of the Exchange Act. Compliance with Rule 11a-1(T) does not involve the collection of confidential information. Rule 11a-1(T) does not have a record retention requirement per se. However, responses made pursuant to Rule 11a-1(T) may be subject to the recordkeeping requirements of Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be directed to (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an email to: [email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to: [email protected]ec.gov. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: March 13, 2015. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06315 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74509; File No. SR-MIAX-2015-04] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX Rule 402 March 13, 2015. I. Introduction

    On January 16, 2015, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (“MIAX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to amend its listing standards under Exchange Rule 402 to eliminate a requirement that the Exchange obtain a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement (“CSSA”) before listing and trading options that overlie certain exchange-traded fund shares (“ETFs”), provided such ETFs are listed pursuant to generic listing standards on an equities exchange for portfolio depositary receipts and index fund shares based on international or global indexes under which a CSSA with a foreign market is not required. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on January 30, 2015.3 The Commission received one comment letter supporting the proposed rule change.4 This order approves the proposed rule change.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74131 (January 26, 2015), 80 FR 5161 (SR-MIAX-2015-04) (“Notice”).

    4See Letter to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from Elizabeth King, Secretary and General Counsel, New York Stock Exchange, dated February 6, 2015 (“NYSE Letter”) (stating that “NYSE Group agrees with . . . and is supportive of MIAX's efforts to make options available as a risk management tool for those ETFs listed on an equities exchange pursuant to generic listing standards without the requirement for a CSSA”).

    II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange allows for the listing and trading of options on ETFs that satisfy certain listing standards.5 These rules require, in part, that (i) any non-U.S. component securities of an index or portfolio of securities on which the ETFs are based that are not subject to CSSAs do not in the aggregate represent more than 50% of the weight of the index or portfolio; 6 (ii) component securities of an index or portfolio of securities on which the ETFs are based for which the primary market is in any one country that is not subject to a CSSA do not represent 20% or more of the weight of the index; 7 and (iii) component securities of an index or portfolio of securities on which the ETFs are based for which the primary market is in any two countries that are not subject to CSSAs do not represent 33% or more of the weight of the index.8 The generic listing standards on equities exchanges for the listing of portfolio depositary receipts and index fund shares based on international or global indexes do not, however, contain a parallel requirement regarding CSSAs.9

    5See MIAX Rule 402(i).

    6See MIAX Rule 402(i)(5)(ii)(A) (renumbered as 402(i)(E)(2)(ii)(A) as part of the proposed rule change).

    7See MIAX Rule 402(i)(5)(ii)(B) (renumbered as 402(i)(E)(2)(ii)(B) as part of the proposed rule change).

    8See MIAX Rule 402(i)(5)(ii)(C) (renumbered as 402(i)(E)(2)(ii)(C) as part of the proposed rule change).

    9See, e.g., NYSE MKT Rule 1000, Commentary .03(a)(B); NYSE MKT Rule 1000A, Commentary .02(a)(B); NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .01(a)(B); NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100, Commentary .01(a)(B); NASDAQ Rule 5705(a)(3)(A)(ii); NASDAQ Rule 5705(b)(3)(A)(ii); BATS Rule 14.11(b)(3)(A)(ii); and BATS Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(ii). See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54739 (November 9, 2006), 71 FR 66993 (November 17, 2006) (SR-Amex-2006-78); 55621 (April 12, 2007), 72 FR 19571 (April 18, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-86); and 55269 (February 9, 2007), 72 FR 7490 (February 15, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-050).

    The Exchange proposes to amend its listing standards to enable the Exchange to list and trade options on certain ETFs without a CSSA provided that such ETFs that underlie options are listed on an equities exchange pursuant to the generic listing standards for portfolio depositary receipts and index fund shares based on international or global indexes under which a CSSA is not required.10 Accordingly, the proposed rule change would provide a limited exception to the requirement regarding CSSAs under the Exchange's listing standards only in circumstances where the underlying ETF was listed on an equities exchange pursuant to generic listing standards for international or global indexes that do not require such exchange to enter into a CSSA with a foreign market.11 The requirement for the Exchange to enter into a CSSA with a foreign market would continue to apply with respect to products that do not fit under the proposed exception.12 In addition, options on ETFs that may be listed and traded without a CSSA under this proposal would be subject to, in all other respects, the Exchange's existing listing and trading rules that apply to options on ETFs and would be captured under the Exchange's surveillance program for options on ETFs.13

    10See Proposed MIAX Rule 402(i)(E)(2)(i). See also NYSE MKT Rule 1000, Commentary .03(a)(B); NYSE MKT Rule 1000A, Commentary .02(a)(B); NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .01(a)(B); NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100, Commentary .01(a)(B); NASDAQ Rule 5705(a)(3)(A)(ii); NASDAQ Rule 5705(b)(3)(A)(ii); BATS Rule 14.11(b)(3)(A)(ii); and BATS Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(ii).

    11Id.

    12See Proposed MIAX Rules 402(i)(E)(2)(ii)(A)-(C).

    13See Notice, supra note 3.

    Finally, the Exchange proposes several technical and non-substantive changes to the formatting of Rule 402(i), including relocating current Rule 402(i)(5)(ii)(E) to proposed Rule 402(i)(E)(1)(iii) and the re-numbering of current Rule 402(i)(5)(ii) to proposed Rule 402(i)(E)(2)(ii). In addition, the Exchange proposes making corrections to inaccurate citations located in Rule 403(g)(1) and (2), so that Rule 403(g)(1) properly cites to Rule 402(i)(E)(1)(i) regarding closed-end ETFs and Rule 403(g)(2) properly cites to Rule 402(i)(E)(1)(ii) regarding open-end ETFs.

    III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of section 6 of the Act 14 and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.15 Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,16 which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

    14 15 U.S.C. 78f.

    15 Additionally, in approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    MIAX proposes to eliminate the requirement that it obtain a CSSA with the applicable foreign market before trading options on certain ETFs that track broad-based indexes of securities.17 CSSAs help to ensure that the listing exchange has the ability to obtain the information necessary to detect and deter potential trading abuses.18 According to the Exchange, it believes that this proposed listing standard for options on ETFs is reasonable for international and global indexes, and, when applied in conjunction with the other listing requirements, would result in options overlying ETFs that are sufficiently broad-based in scope and therefore not readily susceptible to manipulation.19 Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would benefit investors by providing valuable risk management tools.20 The NYSE Group agrees with these statements by the Exchange and supports the proposal.21

    17See Proposed MIAX Rule 402(i)(E)(2)(i). See also NYSE MKT Rule 1000, Commentary .03(a)(B); NYSE MKT Rule 1000A, Commentary .02(a)(B); NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .01(a)(B); NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100, Commentary .01(a)(B); NASDAQ Rule 5705(a)(3)(A)(ii); NASDAQ Rule 5705(b)(3)(A)(ii); BATS Rule 14.11(b)(3)(A)(ii); and BATS Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(ii).

    18See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40761 (December 8, 1998), 63 FR 70952, 70959 (December 22, 1998).

    19See Notice, supra note 3.

    20Id.

    21See NYSE L