Federal Register Vol. 80, No.56,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 56 (March 24, 2015)

Page Range15503-15664
FR Document

80_FR_56
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 15571 - Notice of Public Workshop on Quantum Information Science and the Needs of U.S. IndustryPDF
80 FR 15563 - Synthetic Biology Standards Consortium-Kick-off WorkshopPDF
80 FR 15604 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 15653 - In the Matter of Longhai Steel, Inc., Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
80 FR 15644 - In the Matter of ChitrChatr Communications Inc.; Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
80 FR 15653 - In the Matter of First China Pharmaceutical Group, Inc.; Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
80 FR 15597 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Cellulosic Production Volume Projections and Efficient Producer ReportingPDF
80 FR 15595 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Recordkeeping and Reporting Related to E15 (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 15565 - Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 15553 - Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 15568 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Changed Circumstances ReviewPDF
80 FR 15557 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the Baltic Sea as an Endangered or Threatened Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)PDF
80 FR 15553 - Approval of Subzone Status, The Coleman Company, Inc., Sauk Rapids, MinnesotaPDF
80 FR 15664 - Notice of Open Public HearingPDF
80 FR 15544 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; List of Domestically Nonavailable ArticlesPDF
80 FR 15632 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Penick CorporationPDF
80 FR 15632 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Patheon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.PDF
80 FR 15638 - Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.; Kewaunee Power StationPDF
80 FR 15555 - Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 15548 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Hawaiian and Territorial Fruits and Vegetables RegulationsPDF
80 FR 15551 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Fruits and VegetablesPDF
80 FR 15572 - Disclosure of Consumer Complaint Narrative DataPDF
80 FR 15550 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Peppers From Certain Central American CountriesPDF
80 FR 15652 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 15662 - Collection; Comment Request for Revenue ProcedurePDF
80 FR 15583 - Request for Information Regarding the Consumer Complaint DatabasePDF
80 FR 15662 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
80 FR 15634 - Entergy Operations, Inc., Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1PDF
80 FR 15621 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 15503 - Prohibition Against Certain Flights Within the Tripoli (HLLL) Flight Information Region (FIR); Extension of Expiration DatePDF
80 FR 15653 - Privacy Act; System of Records: Passport Records, State-26PDF
80 FR 15598 - FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Notice of Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 15617 - Determining the Need for and Content of Environmental Assessments for Gene Therapies, Vectored Vaccines, and Related Recombinant Viral or Microbial Products; Guidance for Industry: AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 15587 - Notice of Intent To Grant a Partially Exclusive Patent LicensePDF
80 FR 15631 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for CommentsPDF
80 FR 15661 - Minority Depository Institutions Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 15571 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 15661 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 15632 - Distribution of the 2013 Digital Audio Recording Technology Royalty FundsPDF
80 FR 15604 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 15605 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Savings and Loan Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 15605 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 15605 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 15634 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 15550 - Black Hills National Forest Advisory BoardPDF
80 FR 15629 - Renewal of Agency Information Collection for Tribal Energy Resource AgreementsPDF
80 FR 15630 - Notice of Public Meeting, Las Cruces District Resource Advisory Council Meeting, New MexicoPDF
80 FR 15603 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Carbon Black, Ethylene, Cyanide and Spandex (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 15601 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Lime Manufacturing (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 15628 - Request for Nominations for the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park CommissionPDF
80 FR 15585 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 15627 - Submission of U.S. Nomination to the World Heritage ListPDF
80 FR 15620 - Announcement of the Award of a Single-Source Grant to Compass Family and Community Services in Youngstown, OHPDF
80 FR 15554 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Exempted Fishing PermitPDF
80 FR 15568 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 15567 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 15643 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 15612 - The Food and Drug Administration Food Safety Modernization Act: Focus on Implementation Strategy for Prevention-Oriented Food Safety Standards; Public Meeting and Establishment of DocketPDF
80 FR 15618 - Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 15614 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 15610 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial ReviewPDF
80 FR 15618 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial ReviewPDF
80 FR 15617 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial ReviewPDF
80 FR 15610 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and ControlPDF
80 FR 15614 - Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health: Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
80 FR 15621 - Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 15620 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial ReviewPDF
80 FR 15611 - Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Health Disparities Subcommittee (HDS)PDF
80 FR 15621 - Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer in Young Women (ACBCYW)PDF
80 FR 15611 - Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews (SDRR), Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or the Advisory Board), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)PDF
80 FR 15549 - Retail Exemptions Adjusted Dollar LimitationsPDF
80 FR 15545 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To Amend the Listing of the Southern Selkirk Mountains Population of Woodland CaribouPDF
80 FR 15625 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Nonimmigrant Petition Based on Blanket L Petition; Form I-129S; Revision of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
80 FR 15626 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Interagency Record of Request A, G, or NATO Dependent Employment Authorization or Change/Adjustment To/From A, G, or NATO Status, Form I-566; Revision of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
80 FR 15595 - Village of Gouverneur; Notice of Docket Number for Original License ProceedingPDF
80 FR 15594 - Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 15593 - Turlock Irrigation District, Modesto Irrigation District, La Grange Hydroelectric Project; Notice of Dispute Resolution Panel Meeting and Technical ConferencePDF
80 FR 15593 - Moriah Hydro Corporation; Notice of Pre-Filing Activities in Another DocketPDF
80 FR 15591 - Notice of Commission Staff AttendancePDF
80 FR 15594 - California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective DatePDF
80 FR 15593 - PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Compliance FilingPDF
80 FR 15591 - Nevada Irrigation District; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To IntervenePDF
80 FR 15605 - Par Petroleum Corporation and Mid Pac Petroleum, LLC; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public CommentPDF
80 FR 15589 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Transition to Teaching SurveyPDF
80 FR 15650 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of FeesPDF
80 FR 15651 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of FeesPDF
80 FR 15653 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Rules for the Listing and Trading on the Exchange of Options Settling to the RealVolTMPDF
80 FR 15646 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of FeesPDF
80 FR 15644 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Fees Assessed Under NASDAQ Rule 7016(a)PDF
80 FR 15643 - Information Collection Request; Submission for OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 15663 - Additional Designations, Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation ActPDF
80 FR 15553 - Notice of Meeting of the Agricultural Air Quality Task ForcePDF
80 FR 15641 - Paperwork Reduction Act; Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 15587 - Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery; Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 15532 - Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Recurring Marine Events Held in the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England Captain of the Port ZonePDF
80 FR 15552 - Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Collect InformationPDF
80 FR 15624 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 15622 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 15630 - Notice of Extension of the Public Comment Period for the Notice of Availability of the Carson City District Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, NevadaPDF
80 FR 15644 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 15616 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 15611 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 15565 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 15592 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 15570 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 15609 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 15610 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 15569 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Economic Survey of Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Dealers Associated With the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Grouper-Tilefish Individual Fishing Quota (GT-IFQ) ProgramPDF
80 FR 15564 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Economic Survey of Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Captains and Crew Associated With the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Grouper-Tilefish Individual Fishing Quota (GT-IFQ) ProgramPDF
80 FR 15589 - Records Governing Off-the-Record CommunicationsPDF
80 FR 15590 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 15521 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
80 FR 15525 - Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 15523 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 15517 - Acquisition Regulation: Technical and Administrative Changes to Department of Energy Acquisition RegulationPDF
80 FR 15604 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review, Reinstatement and Renewal; Comment Request; (3064-0029)PDF
80 FR 15530 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH) HelicoptersPDF
80 FR 15528 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
80 FR 15507 - Residual Interest Deadline for Futures Commission MerchantsPDF
80 FR 15515 - Revocation of Significant New Uses of Metal Salts of Complex Inorganic OxyacidsPDF
80 FR 15657 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Application for Modification of Special PermitPDF
80 FR 15660 - Hazardous Materials: Delayed ApplicationsPDF
80 FR 15658 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Application for Special PermitsPDF
80 FR 15659 - Hazardous Materials: Actions on Special Permit ApplicationsPDF
80 FR 15601 - Casmalia Resources Superfund Site; Notice of Proposed CERCLA Administrative De Minimis SettlementPDF
80 FR 15588 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Formula Grant EASIE Annual Performance ReportPDF
80 FR 15550 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Motorized Travel Management, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Washington: CancellationPDF
80 FR 15510 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Steam Generating UnitsPDF
80 FR 15596 - Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Supplemental Funding for Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) GranteesPDF

Issue

80 56 Tuesday, March 24, 2015 Contents Agency Toxic Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 15614-15616 2015-06654 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Food Safety and Inspection Service

See

Forest Service

See

National Agricultural Library

See

Natural Resources Conservation Service

AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Partially Exclusive Patent Licenses, 15587 2015-06683 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Hawaiian and Territorial Fruits and Vegetables Regulations, 15548-15549 2015-06725 Importation of Fruits and Vegetables, 15551-15552 2015-06723 Importation of Peppers From Certain Central American Countries, 15550-15551 2015-06721 Army Army Department NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery, 15587-15588 2015-06610 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection NOTICES Final Policy Statements: Disclosure of Consumer Complaint Narrative Data, 15572-15583 2015-06722 Requests for Information: Consumer Complaint Database, 15583-15585 2015-06707 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 15618-15620 2015-06655 Charter Renewals: Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health, 15614 2015-06649 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer in Young Women, 15621 2015-06644 Advisory Committee to the Director, Health Disparities Subcommittee, 15611-15612 2015-06645 Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee, 15621-15622 2015-06648 Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel, 2015-06647 15610, 15617-15618, 15620 2015-06650 2015-06651 2015-06652 2015-06653 Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel; Corrections, 15620 2015-06646 Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews, Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 15611 2015-06643 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Awards: Single-Source Grant to Compass Family and Community Services in Youngstown, OH, 15620 2015-06662 Coast Guard Coast Guard PROPOSED RULES Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones: Recurring Marine Events Held in the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England Captain of the Port Zone, 15532-15544 2015-06609 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 15565, 15570-15571 2015-06597 2015-06599
Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission RULES Residual Interest Deadline for Futures Commission Merchants, 15507-15510 2015-06548 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Meetings: Minority Depository Institutions Advisory Committee, 15661 2015-06681 Copyright Royalty Board Copyright Royalty Board NOTICES Meetings: Distribution of 2013 Digital Audio Recording Technology Royalty Funds, 15632-15633 2015-06678 Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

See

Army Department

NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 15585-15587 2015-06665
Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Patheon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 15632 2015-06733 Penick Corp., 15632 2015-06734 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Formula Grant EASIE Annual Performance Report, 15588-15589 2015-06379 Transition to Teaching Survey, 15589 2015-06625 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

RULES Acquisition Regulations: Technical and Administrative Changes, 15517-15520 2015-06572
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Steam Generating Units, 15510-15515 2015-06152 Significant New Use Rules: Metal Salts of Complex Inorganic Oxyacids; Revocation, 15515-15517 2015-06474 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Cellulosic Production Volume Projections and Efficient Producer Reporting, 15597-15598 2015-06770 NESHAP for Carbon Black, Ethylene, Cyanide and Spandex (Renewal), 15603-15604 2015-06668 NSPS for Lime Manufacturing (Renewal), 15601 2015-06667 Recordkeeping and Reporting Related to E15, 15595-15596 2015-06769 Funding Availabilities: Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund, 15596-15597 2015-05296 Meetings: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel, 15598-15600 2015-06689 Proposed CERCLA Administrative De Minimis Settlements: Casmalia Resources Superfund Site, 15601-15603 2015-06447 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Prohibition against Certain Flights within the Tripoli (HLLL) Flight Information Region: Extension of Expiration Date, 15503-15507 2015-06697 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH) Helicopters, 15530-15532 2015-06567 Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 15521-15522, 15528-15530 2015-06563 2015-06579 Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Airplanes, 15525-15528 2015-06576 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 15523-15525 2015-06574 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 15604 2015-06570 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 15604 2015-06802 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC, 15594-15595 2015-06634 Combined Filings, 15590-15593 2015-06586 2015-06598 Compliance Filings: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 15593-15594 2015-06629 Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date: California Independent System Operator Corp., 15594 2015-06630 Meetings: Commission Staff Attendance, 15591 2015-06631 Dispute Resolution Panel and Technical Conference; Turlock Irrigation District, Modesto Irrigation District, La Grange Hydroelectric Project, 15593 2015-06633 Original License Proceedings: Village of Gouverneur, 15595 2015-06635 Pre-Filing Activities In another Docket: Moriah Hydro Corp., 15593 2015-06632 Preliminary Determinations: Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility; Nevada Irrigation District, 15591-15592 2015-06628 Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications, 15589-15590 2015-06587 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 15604-15605 2015-06676 Acquisitions of Shares of a Savings and Loan Holding Company, 15605 2015-06675 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 15605 2015-06674 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; Corrections, 15605 2015-06673 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Consent Orders: Par Petroleum Corp. and Mid Pac Petroleum, LLC; Analysis to Aid Public Comment, 15605-15609 2015-06626 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Amend the Listing of the Southern Selkirk Mountains Population of Woodland Caribou, 15545-15547 2015-06640 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Guidance: Determining the Need for and Content of Environmental Assessments for Gene Therapies, Vectored Vaccines, and Related Recombinant Viral or Microbial Products; Availability, 15617 2015-06686 Meetings: Food and Drug Administration Food Safety Modernization Act: Focus on Implementation Strategy for Prevention-Oriented Food Safety Standards; Establishment of Docket, 15612-15614 2015-06656 Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service NOTICES Retail Exemptions Adjusted Dollar Limitations, 15549-15550 2015-06641 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 15663 2015-06618 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Subzone Approvals: Coleman Co., Inc. Sauk Rapids, MN, 15553 2015-06748 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Motorized Travel Management, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, WA; Cancellation, 15550 2015-06304 Meetings: Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board, 15550 2015-06671 General Services General Services Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulations: List of Domestically Nonavailable Articles, 15544-15545 2015-06735 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 15631-15632 2015-06682 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 15626-15627 2015-06636
Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Tribal Energy Resource Agreements, 15629-15630 2015-06670 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Geological Survey

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 15661-15663 2015-06706 2015-06708 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, 15553-15554 2015-06752 Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of China, 15568-15569 2015-06750 Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China, 15555-15557 2015-06727 Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan, 15565-15567 2015-06754 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Carson City District Draft Resource Management Plan, NV, 15630-15631 2015-06605 Meetings: Las Cruces District Resource Advisory Council Meeting, NM, 15630 2015-06669 Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Royalty Board

National Agricultural National Agricultural Library NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 15552-15553 2015-06608 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Meetings: Quantum Information Science and the Needs of U.S. Industry; Workshop, 15571-15572 2015-06848 Synthetic Biology Standards Consortium—Kick-off Workshop, 15563-15564 2015-06839 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 2015-06594 2015-06595 2015-06600 15609-15611, 15616-15617 2015-06601 National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 15621 2015-06698 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 15571 2015-06680 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Economic Survey of Gulf of Mexico Captains and Crew Associated with the Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish Individual Fishing Quota Program, 15564-15565 2015-06588 Economic Survey of Gulf of Mexico Dealers Associated with the Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish Individual Fishing Quota Program, 15569-15570 2015-06589 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the Baltic Sea as an Endangered or Threatened Distinct Population Segment, 15557-15563 2015-06749 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Exempted Fishing Permit, 15554-15555 2015-06661 Meetings: New England Fishery Management Council, 15567-15568 2015-06659 2015-06660 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission, 15628-15629 2015-06666 U.S. Nominations to World Heritage List, 15627-15628 2015-06663 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 15634 2015-06672 National Resources Natural Resources Conservation Service NOTICES Meetings: Agricultural Air Quality Task Force, 15553 2015-06617 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Exemptions: Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Kewaunee Power Station, 15638-15641 2015-06730 Entergy Operations, Inc., Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, 15634-15638 2015-06700 Office National Office of National Drug Control Policy NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 15641-15643 2015-06616 Peace Peace Corps NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 15643 2015-06619 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Special Permit Applications: Hazardous Materials, 2015-06463 15658-15660 2015-06469 Hazardous Materials; Delayed Applications, 15660-15661 2015-06471 Hazardous Materials; Modification, 15657-15658 2015-06473 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 15643-15644 2015-06602 2015-06657 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 15652 2015-06720 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BOX Options Exchange LLC, 15653 2015-06622 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 15646-15649, 15651-15652 2015-06621 2015-06623 ISE Gemini, LLC, 15649-15650 2015-06624 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 15644-15646 2015-06620 Trading Suspension Orders: ChitrChatr Communications Inc., 15644 2015-06796 First China Pharmaceutical Group, Inc., 15652 2015-06795 Longhai Steel, Inc., 15652 2015-06800 State Department State Department NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 15653-15657 2015-06691 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 15622-15625 2015-06606 2015-06607 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 15661 2015-06679
U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Nonimmigrant Petition Based on Blanket L Petition, 15625-15626 2015-06637 U.S. China U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission NOTICES Public Hearings, 15663-15664 2015-06743 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 56 Tuesday, March 24, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 91 [Docket No.: FAA-2011-0246; Amdt. No. 91-321B] RIN 2120-AK70 Prohibition Against Certain Flights Within the Tripoli (HLLL) Flight Information Region (FIR); Extension of Expiration Date AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule and extension of expiration date.

SUMMARY:

This action extends the prohibition of flight operations within the Tripoli (HLLL) Flight Information Region (FIR) by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating a U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except operators of such aircraft that are foreign air carriers. The extension of the expiration date is necessary to address a potential hazard to persons and aircraft engaged in such flight operations. Additionally, the FAA is amending the prohibition to make clear that operations by sub-contractors under a U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality's contract, grant, or cooperative agreement may be included in an approval request and to remove an obsolete reference to paragraph 8 of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973. The FAA is also revising the approval conditions that will apply to operations authorized by other U.S. Government departments, agencies, and instrumentalities that are approved by the FAA, and the information about requests for exemption, to reflect the termination of statutory authorization for the FAA premium war risk insurance program.

DATES:

The final rule is effective March 20, 2015. This action extends the period during which Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 112, scheduled to expire on March 20, 2015, will remain in effect. The expiration date is extended until March 20, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical questions concerning this action, contact Will Gonzalez, Air Transportation Division, AFS-220, Flight Standards Service Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone 202-267-8166; email [email protected]

For legal questions concerning this action, contact Mary Mason, Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8018; email mary.ma[email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Good Cause for Immediate Adoption

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of title 5, U.S. Code, authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” In this instance, the FAA finds that notice and public comment to this immediately adopted final rule, as well as any delay in the effective date of this rule, are contrary to the public interest due to the immediate need to address the continued potential hazard to civil aviation that exists in the Tripoli (HLL) FIR, as described in the Background section of this rule.

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA is responsible for the safety of flight in the United States (U.S.) and for the safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-registered civil aircraft, and U.S.-certificated airmen throughout the world. The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in title 49, U.S. Code. Subtitle I, section 106(f), describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII of title 49, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. Section 40101(d)(1) provides that the Administrator shall consider in the public interest, among other matters, assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce. Section 40105(b)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to exercise his authority consistently with the obligations of the U.S. Government under international agreements.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, subpart III, section 44701, General requirements. Under that section, the FAA is charged broadly with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, among other things, regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, because it extends the prohibition against the persons subject to paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 112, 14 CFR 91.1603, conducting flight operations in the Tripoli (HLLL) FIR due to the continued potential hazard to the safety of such persons' flight operations, as described in the Background section of this document.

I. Executive Summary

This action extends the prohibition of flight operations in the Tripoli (HLLL) FIR by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of a U.S. airman certificate, except when such persons are operating a U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when such operators are foreign air carriers. The FAA finds this action necessary to address potential hazards to persons and aircraft engaged in such flight operations. The prohibition, which is scheduled to expire on March 20, 2015, is hereby extended to March 20, 2017.

II. Background

As a result of safety and national security concerns regarding flight operations in the Tripoli (HLLL) FIR, the FAA issued § 91.1603 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, SFAR No. 112, in March 2011 (76 FR 16238, March 23, 2011). SFAR No. 112 prohibits all U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating a U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except operators of such aircraft that are foreign air carriers, from conducting flight operations in the Tripoli (HLLL) FIR, except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of the SFAR.

When SFAR No. 112 was issued, an armed conflict was ongoing in Libya and presented a potential hazard to civil aviation. The FAA was concerned that runways at Libya's international airports, including the main international airports serving Benghazi (HLLB) and Tripoli (HLLT), might be damaged or degraded. There was also concern that air navigation services in the Tripoli FIR might be unavailable or degraded. In addition, the proliferation of air defense weapons, including Man-Portable Air-Defense Systems (MANPADS), and the presence of military operations, including Libyan aerial bombardments and unplanned military flights entering and departing the Tripoli (HLLL) FIR, posed a potential hazard to U.S. operators, U.S.-registered aircraft, and FAA-certificated airmen that might operate within the Tripoli (HLLL) FIR. Additionally, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1973 on March 18, 2011, which mandated a ban on all flights in the airspace of Libya, with certain exceptions.

By March 2014, although the Gadhafi regime had been overthrown and the UN-mandated ban on flights in Libyan airspace had been lifted, the FAA continued to have significant security concerns for Libya and for the safety of U.S. civil aviation operations in that country. On March 20, 2014, the FAA extended the expiration date of SFAR No. 112, § 91.1603, to March 20, 2015. The FAA considered that, on December 12, 2013, the Department of State had issued a Travel Warning strongly advising against all non-essential travel to Libya. Various groups had called for attacks against U.S. citizens and U.S. interests in Libya. Many military-grade weapons remained in the hands of private individuals and groups, among them anti-aircraft weapons that could be used against civil aviation, including MANPADS. The Travel Warning also warned that closures or threats of closures of the international airports occurred regularly for maintenance, labor, or security-related reasons. For those reasons, on March 21, 2014, the FAA published a final rule (79 FR 15679; corrected at 79 FR 19288, April 8, 2014) extending the expiration date of SFAR No. 112, § 91.1603, to March 20, 2015.

The FAA continues to have significant concerns regarding the safety of U.S. civil aviation operations in the Tripoli (HLLL) FIR at all altitudes due to the hazardous situation created by the ongoing fighting involving various militant groups and Libyan military forces in various areas of Libya, including some near Tripoli and Benghazi. Islamist militant groups hold and control significant portions of Western Libya, including Tripoli International Airport (HLLT). Militant groups, such as Libyan Dawn, possess a variety of anti-aircraft weapons, which give them the capability to target aircraft upon landing and departure and at higher altitudes.

Civil aviation infrastructure is at risk from indirect fire from mortars and rockets targeting Libyan airports during the ongoing fighting. Civil aviation in the Tripoli FIR is also at risk from aerial combat operations and other military activity conducted by Libyan forces.

Furthermore, the security situation in the Tripoli (HLLL) FIR continues to be unpredictable and unstable. Therefore, since there is a significant continuing risk to the safety of U.S. civil aviation in the Tripoli (HLLL) FIR, the FAA hereby extends the expiration date of SFAR No. 112, § 91.1603, for an additional two years.

The FAA will continue to actively evaluate the area to determine to what extent U.S. civil operators may be able to safely operate therein. Adjustments to this SFAR may be appropriate if the risk to aviation safety and security changes. The FAA may amend or rescind this SFAR as necessary prior to its expiration date.

Additionally, the FAA is amending paragraph (c), Permitted operations, of SFAR No. 112, § 91.1603, to make clear that operations by sub-contractors under a U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality's contract, grant, or cooperative agreement may be included in an approval request and to remove an obsolete reference to paragraph 8 of UNSCR 1973. UNSCR 2016 (2011) terminated paragraphs 6 to 12 of UNSCR 1973, effective 23:59 p.m. Libyan local time on October 31, 2011. The FAA is also revising the approval conditions that will apply to operations authorized by other U.S. Government departments, agencies, and instrumentalities and approved by the FAA, and the information about requests for exemption, to reflect the termination of statutory authorization for the FAA premium war risk insurance program. Section 102 of Division L of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Public Law 113-235, December 16, 2014, inter alia, amended 49 U.S.C. 44302(f) and 44310(a) to specify the termination dates in those sections as December 11, 2014. The effect was to terminate coverage under FAA's premium war risk insurance program as of December 11, 2014.

Because the circumstances described herein warrant immediate action by the FAA, I find that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Further, I find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this rule effective immediately upon issuance. I also find that this action is fully consistent with the obligations under 49 U.S.C. 40105 to ensure that I exercise my duties consistently with the obligations of the United States under international agreements.

Revised Approval Conditions

As noted above, Congress terminated coverage under FAA's premium war risk insurance program as of December 11, 2014. Consequently, the FAA is revising the approval conditions that will apply to any approvals that the FAA may grant for flight operations authorized by another U.S. Government department, agency or instrumentality in the Tripoli (HLLL) FIR to remove material related to this program. When the FAA approves such operations, the FAA's Aviation Safety Organization (AVS) will send a letter to the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality confirming that the FAA's approval is subject to the following conditions:

(1) Any approval will stipulate those procedures and conditions that limit, to the greatest degree possible, the risk to the operator, while still allowing the operator to achieve its operational objectives.

(2) Before any approval takes effect, the operator must submit to the FAA:

(a) a written release of the U.S. Government from all damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses; and

(b) the operator's agreement to indemnify the U.S. Government with respect to any and all third-party damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses, relating to any event arising from or related to the approved operations in the Tripoli (HLLL) FIR; and

(3) Other conditions that the FAA may specify, including those that may be imposed in OpSpecs.

The release and agreement to indemnify do not preclude an operator from raising a claim under an applicable non-premium war risk insurance policy issued by the FAA under chapter 443 of title 49, United States Code.

If the proposed operation or operations are approved, the FAA will issue OpSpecs to the certificate holder authorizing these operations and will notify the department, agency, or instrumentality that requested FAA approval of civil flight operations to be conducted by one or more persons described in paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 112, § 91.1603, of any additional conditions beyond those contained in the approval letter. The requesting department, agency, or instrumentality must have a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement (or its prime contractor must have a subcontract) with the person(s) described in paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 112, § 91.1603, on whose behalf the department, agency, or instrumentality requests FAA approval.

Requests for Exemption

Any operations not conducted under the approval process set forth above must be conducted under an exemption from SFAR No. 112, § 91.1603. A request by any person covered under this SFAR for an exemption must comply with 14 CFR part 11 and will require exceptional circumstances beyond those contemplated by the approval process set forth above. In addition to the information required by 14 CFR 11.81, at a minimum, the requestor must describe in its submission to the FAA—

• The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the operation;

• The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the SFAR;

• The specific locations within the Tripoli FIR where the proposed operation(s) will be conducted; and

• The method by which the operator will obtain current threat information, and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of its proposed operations (e.g., the pre-mission planning and briefing, in-flight, and post-flight phases).

Additionally, the release and agreement to indemnify, as referred to above, will be required as a condition of any exemption issued under this SFAR. The FAA recognizes that operations that may be affected by SFAR No. 112, § 91.1603, may be planned for the governments of other countries with the support of the U.S. Government. While these operations will not be permitted through the approval process, the FAA will process exemption requests for such operations on an expedited basis and prior to any private exemption requests.

III. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as codified in 5 U.S.C. 603 et seq., requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended, 19 U.S.C. Chapter 13, prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Agreements Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), as codified in 2 U.S.C. 1532, requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with a base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.

Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning for this determination follows:

This rule extends, by an additional two years, the prohibition by SFAR No. 112 of flight operations within the Tripoli (HLLL) Flight Information Region (FIR) by all: U.S. air carriers, U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating a U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except operators of such aircraft that are foreign air carriers. Because of the civil war that was ongoing in Libya when SFAR No. 112 was issued, the FAA believed that few, if any, operators were operating in the Tripoli (HLLL) FIR. Consequently, the FAA found the costs of SFAR No. 112 to be minimal. Given the continuing threats to civil aviation in the Tripoli (HLLL) FIR described in the Background section of this final rule, including but not limited to ongoing fighting involving various groups, the FAA has determined that the costs of continuing to prohibit U.S. civil flights in the Tripoli FIR are still minimal. These minimal costs are exceeded by the benefits of avoiding the significant hazards to civil aviation detailed above in the Background section of this preamble.

In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined this final rule is a “significant regulatory action,” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, because it raises novel policy issues contemplated under that executive order. The rule is also “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The final rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, will not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade and will not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector.

A. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354, “RFA”) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.

However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

As discussed above, the FAA estimates the costs of this rule will be minimal. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

B. International Trade Impact Assessment

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended, prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to this Act, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that its purpose is to protect the safety of U.S. civil aviation from potential hazards outside the U.S. Therefore, the rule is in compliance with the Trade Agreements Act.

C. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $151.0 million in lieu of $100 million.

This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this immediately adopted final rule.

E. International Compatibility and Cooperation

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to this regulation.

F. Environmental Analysis

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f of this order and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

The FAA has reviewed the implementation of the SFAR and determined it is categorically excluded from further environmental review according to FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 312f. The FAA has examined possible extraordinary circumstances and determined that no such circumstances exist. After careful and thorough consideration of the action, the FAA finds that this Federal action does not require preparation of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with the requirements of NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, and FAA Order 1050.1E.

IV. Executive Order Determinations A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

The FAA has analyzed this immediately adopted final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have Federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

The FAA analyzed this immediately adopted final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it would not be a “significant energy action” under the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation

Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

V. Additional Information A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

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

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

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

• Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.fdsys.gov.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Please identify the docket or amendment number of this rulemaking in your request.

All documents the FAA considered in developing this rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced above.

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91

Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety, Freight, Libya.

The Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES 1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).

2. In § 91.1603, revise paragraphs (c) and (e) to read as follows:
§ 91.1603 Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 112—Prohibition Against Certain Flights Within the Tripoli (HLLL) Flight Information Region (FIR).

(c) Permitted operations. This section does not prohibit persons described in paragraph (a) of this section from conducting flight operations within the Tripoli (HLLL) FIR under the following conditions:

(1) Flight operations are conducted under a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement with a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. government (or under a subcontract between the prime contractor of the department, agency, or instrumentality, and the person described in paragraph (a) of this section), with the approval of the FAA, or under an exemption issued by the FAA. The FAA will process requests for approval or exemption in a timely manner, with the order of preference being: First, for those operations in support of U.S. government-sponsored activities; second, for those operations in support of government-sponsored activities of a foreign country with the support of a U.S. government department, agency, or instrumentality; and third, for all other operations.

(2) [Reserved]

(e) Expiration. This Special Federal Aviation Regulation will remain in effect until March 20, 2017. The FAA may amend, rescind, or extend this Special Federal Aviation Regulation as necessary.

Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101(d)(1), 40105(b)(1)(A), and 44701(a)(5), on March 19, 2015. Michael P. Huerta, Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-06697 Filed 3-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 1 RIN 3038-AE22 Residual Interest Deadline for Futures Commission Merchants AGENCY:

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is amending its regulations to remove the December 31, 2018 automatic termination date for the phased-in compliance schedule for futures commission merchants (“FCMs”) and provides assurance that the residual interest deadline, as defined in the regulations (“Residual Interest Deadline”), will only be revised through a separate Commission rulemaking.

DATES:

The final rule is effective May 26, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight: Thomas Smith, Acting Director, 202-418-5495, [email protected]; Jennifer Bauer, Special Counsel, 202-418-5472, [email protected]; Joshua Beale, Attorney-Advisor, 202-418-5446, [email protected], Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

Division of Clearing and Risk: Kirsten V.K. Robbins, Associate Chief Counsel, 202-418-5313, [email protected], Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

Office of the Chief Economist: Stephen Kane, Research Economist, 202-418-5911, [email protected], Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

On October 30, 2013, the Commission amended Regulation 1.22 to enhance the safety of funds deposited by customers with FCMs as margin for futures transactions.1 The amendments require an FCM to maintain its own capital (hereinafter referred to as the FCM's “Residual Interest”) in customer segregated accounts in an amount equal to or greater than its customers' aggregate undermargined amounts.2 The Commission established a phased-in compliance schedule for Regulation 1.22 with an initial Residual Interest Deadline of 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the date of the settlement referenced in Regulation 1.22(c)(2)(i) or (c)(4) (the “Settlement Date”), beginning November 14, 2014.3 Amended Regulation 1.22 also directs staff to host a public roundtable and publish a report for public comment by May 16, 2016 addressing, to the extent information is practically available, the practicability (for both FCMs and customers) of moving the Residual Interest Deadline from 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the Settlement Date, to the time of settlement or to some other time of day.4 Furthermore, amended Regulation 1.22 provides that, absent Commission action, the phased-in compliance period for the Residual Interest Deadline automatically terminates on December 31, 2018.5 In the case of such automatic termination, the Residual Interest Deadline would change to the time of settlement on the Settlement Date.

1 Enhancing Protections Afforded Customers and Customer Funds Held by Futures Commission Merchants and Derivatives Clearing Organizations, Final Rule, 78 FR 68506 (Nov. 14, 2013) (amending 17 CFR parts 1, 3, 22, 30 and 140).

2See 17 CFR 1.22(c)(3)(i). As defined in Regulation 1.22(c)(1), a customer's account is “undermargined,” when the value of the customer funds for a customer's account is less than the total amount of collateral required by derivatives clearing organizations for that account's contracts. See 78 FR 68513, n.30.

3See 17 CFR 1.22(c)(5)(ii); See 78 FR at 68578.

4See 17 CFR 1.22(c)(5)(iii)(A).

5See 17 CFR 1.22(c)(5)(iii)(C).

II. The Proposal

On November 3, 2014, the Commission proposed to revise Regulation 1.22 to remove the December 31, 2018 automatic termination of the phase-in compliance period.6 In the NPRM, the Commission stated the intention to retain the Residual Interest Deadline 7 at 6 p.m. Eastern Time, unless the Commission takes further action via rulemaking.

6 Residual Interest Deadline for Futures Commission Merchants, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 79 FR 68148 (Nov. 14, 2014) (amending 17 CFR part 1).

7See 17 CFR 1.22(c)(3)(i). The term “Residual Interest Deadline” is defined in Regulation 1.22(c)(5). If an FCM is required to increase its Residual Interest as a result of customer undermargined accounts, the FCM must deposit additional funds into the customer segregated accounts by the specified Residual Interest Deadline.

In the NPRM, the Commission stated that the removal of the automatic termination of the phase-in compliance period would provide the Commission with a greater degree of flexibility to assess all relevant data, including the costs and benefits of revising the Residual Interest Deadline. The Commission also retained in Regulation 1.22 the requirement for Commission staff to publish for public comment a report addressing the practicability and costs and benefits of revising the Residual Interest Deadline, and the additional requirement for Commission staff to conduct a public roundtable on the issue.

The Commission invited comments on all aspects of the amendments, particularly those regarding the practicability and costs and benefits of revising the Residual Interest Deadline.

III. Comments and Response

The Commission received ten comments on the NPRM. The comments were submitted by the Futures Industry Association (“FIA”), CME Group (“CME”), National Futures Association (“NFA”), National Introducing Brokers Association (“NIBA”), Managed Funds Association (“MFA”), Coalition of National Producers and Agribusiness (“Agribusiness Coalition”),8 National Grain and Feed Association (“NGFA”), National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (“NCFC”), the Honorable Heidi Heitkamp, United States Senate, and Chris Barnard.9 All ten comments supported the proposed amendments.

8 The Commission received two comment letters filed by the Coalition of National Producers and Agribusiness. The second comment letter was identical to the first with the exception of an amendment adding two additional signatories.

9 The comments are available on the Commission's Web site, http://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=1537.

The FIA and its member firms supported the amendments, stating their willingness to participate in the study and citing concerns that a residual interest deadline earlier than 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the Settlement Date might impose significant financial and operational burdens on both customers and FCMs. The NFA encouraged the Commission to consider industry comment on the timing and parameters of the study to ensure the Commission has the most complete information available. The NIBA, NCFC, NGFA, Agribusiness Coalition, and MFA added that an earlier Residual Interest Deadline could force the pre-funding of margin by FCMs, in turn causing increased operational costs on FCMs and their customers, which could result in the possible exit of certain customers from the marketplace. Senator Heitkamp also supported the proposed amendments and stated that the rule would provide end users with the certainty they need to run their businesses.

All commenters supported the position that any future revisions should be done through separate rulemaking. The FIA and CME further stated that the opportunity to provide input on the setting of the Residual Interest Deadline was something consistent with the goals of, if not required by, the Administrative Procedure Act. Chris Barnard asked for certainty on the proposed retention of the existing deadline absent further Commission rulemaking, stating that such a requirement is open-ended.

The Commission has considered the comments and is adopting the amendments as proposed. Amending Regulation 1.22 to require the Commission to conduct a separate rulemaking prior to revising the Residual Interest Deadline will provide market participants with an opportunity to review and comment on the Commission's staff's roundtable and public report. The amendments also provide market participants with an opportunity to review and to provide comments, via a rulemaking process, on any Commission proposed revisions to the Residual Interest Deadline.

IV. Cost-Benefit Considerations

Section 15(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its actions before promulgating a regulation under the CEA or issuing certain orders.10 Section 15(a) further specifies that the costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: (1) Protection of market participants and the public; (2) efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; (3) price discovery; (4) sound risk management practices; and (5) other public interest considerations. The Commission considers the costs and benefits resulting from its discretionary determinations with respect to the section 15(a) factors.

10 7 U.S.C. 19(a).

As noted in the NPRM, the status quo baseline with which the costs and benefits are compared is the Residual Interest Deadline of 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the Settlement Date, which would apply until the Commission takes further action or, in the absence of further action, until December 31, 2018. The status quo baseline includes the automatic termination of the phase-in compliance period at December 31, 2018, which, absent Commission action, would move the Residual Interest Deadline to the time of settlement referenced in Regulation 1.22(c)(2)(i), or as appropriate, 1.22(c)(4).

As also noted in the NPRM, the status quo baseline is similar to this final rulemaking and, as such, the Commission believes that there is not likely to be any material differences between this final rulemaking and the status quo baseline in terms of the first four section 15(a) factors. The Commission notes that the amendments will alter the procedure followed with regard to the removal of the automatic termination of the phase-in period, which could alter the cost and benefit with respect to the fifth section 15(a) factor. The Commission specifically invited comment on the cost and benefit implications related to the fifth section 15(a) factor (“other public interest considerations”). However, the Commission received no comments that contained any quantitative data regarding the monetary value of any public interest considerations. As such, the Commission has considered the fifth section 15(a) factor qualitatively.

All commenters supported the termination of the automatic phase-in compliance period. The CME stated that removing the automatic moving of the residual interest deadline will allow impacted market participants, including customers and FCMs, to provide comments on any proposed rule change that results from the study. In addition, the FIA stated the adoption of the amendment will also afford the Commission the opportunity to carefully consider the results of the staff study without being bound by an unnecessary deadline.

The Commission agrees with commenters that a separate rulemaking prior to revising the Residual Interest Deadline will afford the public an opportunity to participate in any future decision-making concerning any possible movement of the Residual Interest Deadline. The termination of the automatic phase-in compliance period will grant the Commission more opportunity to consider the study and the public roundtable, as well as an opportunity to receive and evaluate additional public comment on any proposed rule change.

V. Related Matters A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) 11 requires Federal agencies, in promulgating regulations, to consider the impact of those regulations on small entities. The Commission has previously established certain definitions of “small entities” to be used by the Commission in evaluating the impact of its rules on small entities in accordance with the RFA.12 The final amendments would affect FCMs. The Commission previously has determined that FCMs are not small entities for purposes of the RFA, and, thus, the requirements of the RFA do not apply to FCMs.13 The Commission's determination was based, in part, upon the obligation of FCMs to meet the minimum financial requirements established by the Commission to enhance the protection of customers' segregated funds and protect the financial condition of FCMs generally.14 Accordingly, the Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, hereby certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the final amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

11 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

12 47 FR 18618 (Apr. 30, 1982).

13Id. at 18619.

14Id.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) provides that a Federal 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 control number issued by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”). This rulemaking amends requirements that contain a collection of information for which the Commission has previously received a control number from OMB. The title for this collection of information is “Regulations and Forms Pertaining to Financial Integrity of the Market Place, OMB control number 3038-0024”. This collection of information is not expected to be impacted by the rule amendment approved herein, as the calculations which are already reflected in the burden estimate are not expected to change; the phase-in period for assessing compliance relative to such calculations is the sole aspect of the collection of information that will be altered. The PRA burden hours associated with this collection of information are therefore not expected to be increased or reduced as a result of the final amendments.

Accordingly, for purposes of the PRA, these final rule amendments would not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 1

Brokers, Commodity futures, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission amends 17 CFR part 1 as set forth below:

PART 1—GENERAL REGULATIONS UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 5, 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6i, 6k, 6l, 6m, 6n, 6o, 6p, 6r, 6s, 7, 7a-1, 7a-2, 7b, 7b-3, 8, 9, 10a, 12, 12a, 12c, 13a, 13a-1, 16, 16a, 19, 21, 23, and 24 (2012).

2. In § 1.22, revise paragraphs (c)(5)(iii)(B) and (C) to read as follows:
§ 1.22 Use of futures customer funds restricted.

(c) * * *

(5) * * *

(iii) * * *

(B) Nine months after publication of the report required by paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(A) of this section, the Commission may (but shall not be required to) do either of the following:

(1) Terminate the phase-in period through rulemaking, in which case the phase-in period shall end as of a date established by a final rule published in the Federal Register, which date shall be no less than one year after the date such rule is published; or

(2) Determine that it is necessary or appropriate in the public interest to propose through rulemaking a different Residual Interest Deadline. In that event, the Commission shall establish, if necessary, a phase-in schedule in the final rule published in the Federal Register.

(C) If the phase-in schedule has not been terminated or revised pursuant to paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(B) of this section, then the Residual Interest Deadline shall remain 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the date of the settlement referenced in paragraph (c)(2)(i) or, as appropriate, (c)(4) of this section until such time that the Commission takes further action through rulemaking.

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 18, 2015, by the Commission. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission. Note:

The following appendices will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Appendices to Residual Interest Deadline for Futures Commission Merchants—Commission Voting Summary, Chairman's Statement, and Commissioners' Statements Appendix 1—Commission Voting Summary

On this matter, Chairman Massad and Commissioners Wetjen, Bowen, and Giancarlo voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.

Appendix 2—Statement of Chairman Timothy G. Massad

Today we are finalizing a change to a rule that concerns one of the most important objectives of the Commission, which is to protect customer funds. In addition, today's action reflects one of my key priorities since taking office, which is to make sure our rules do not impose undue burdens or unintended consequences for the nonfinancial commercial businesses that depend on the derivatives markets to hedge commercial risks.

Today's action concerns Regulation 1.22, regarding the posting of collateral. When a customer's account has insufficient margin, a futures commission merchant must commit its own capital—often referred to as the FCM's “residual interest”—to make up the difference. Regulation 1.22 sets the deadline for posting residual interest. That deadline, in turn, affects when customers must post collateral. The regulation provided that the deadline, which is currently 6:00 p.m. on the next day, would automatically become earlier in a couple years, without any Commission action or opportunity for public input.

Last fall, we proposed to amend the rule so that the FCM's deadline to post “residual interest” will not become earlier than 6:00 p.m. without an affirmative Commission action and an opportunity for public comment. Today, we are finalizing that change.

An earlier deadline can help make sure that FCMs always hold sufficient margin and do not use one customer's margin to support another customer, but it can also impose costs on customers who must deliver margin sooner. We will do a study of how well the current rule and deadline are working, the practicability of changing the deadline, and the costs and benefits of any change. Today's action will make sure that the Commission considers all those issues and that customers will have an opportunity to provide us with input on any future change the Commission may consider.

Appendix 3—Statement of Commissioner Mark P. Wetjen

In the fall of 2013, the Commission made some important changes to rule 1.22, to which registered futures commission merchants (FCMs) are subject. The revision to this rule, known as the “residual-interest requirement”, clarified that one customer's funds could not be used by an FCM to cover another customer's margin deficit, but phased in a deadline for stricter compliance with this clarified standard. The change was designed to reduce risks to those customer funds placed in the care of FCMs, and were among a host of regulatory enhancements adopted by the Commission after two failures of large, registered FCMs in 2011 and 2012—MF Global and Peregrine Financial.

I supported those regulatory enhancements—including the revision to rule 1.22—because of the importance of the matter addressed in each: The safekeeping of customer money, which is the most sacrosanct duty that any financial institution owes to its customers. Today, the overall framework of regulatory requirements that registered FCMs must comply with is substantially different today than in 2011. For example, FCMs are no longer permitted to use customer funds for in-house lending through repurchase agreements; they are subject to restrictions on the types of securities that customer funds can be invested in; they must pass on customer initial margin on a gross basis to the clearinghouse; through LSOC (legal segregation with operational comingling) they must legally segregate cleared swaps customer collateral on an individual basis; and they were required to significantly enhance their supervision of and accounting for customer funds. As a result, the risks posed to customers funds stewarded by FCMs have been significantly reduced.

The recent customer protection rulemakings all were well intentioned, but indisputably carried some additional costs and burdens for both FCMs and their customers. The analysis was made at the time, however, that those burdens and costs were outweighed by the benefits to FCM customers, especially against the very recent backdrop of hundreds of millions of dollars of customer funds having been stolen, or tied up in a bankruptcy proceeding, for at least a period of time.

The release before us essentially re-weighs the cost or burden on one hand, and the benefit on the other, and comes up with a slightly different, but well supported, conclusion regarding the residual-interest requirement. The costs or burdens revisited in the release: (1) Uncertainty to the marketplace invited by a time-of-settlement compliance deadline that was subject to future review by the Commission staff, which suggested a change could come to the requirements, but might not; and (2) the anticipated costs to FCMs of having to finance the funding to top up their customers' margin deficits, or the cost to customers of pre-funding their margin accounts with FCMs. And the benefit at issue in the release: The value to an FCM customer of ensuring that its funds will never be borrowed by an FCM to cover another customer's deficit.

The inherent risk to this common practice by FCMs is that should an FCM become insolvent after it posts required margin to the clearinghouse, but before it collects margin deficits from all of its customers, the customers whose funds were used to cover a deficit might not see those funds again, or perhaps only after a protracted bankruptcy proceeding. This practice also is not technically compliant with how rule 1.22 is written, which prohibits FCMs from “using, or permitting the use of, the futures customer funds of one futures customer to purchase, margin, or settle the trades, contracts, or commodity options of, or to secure or extend the credit of, any person other than such futures customer.”

This final rule keeps the residual-interest deadline at the close of business on the day following the margin-deficit calculation and eliminates the future deadline of the time of settlement on the day following the margin-deficit calculation. The Commission staff is still required to perform a feasibility study to determine whether future, more aggressive residual-interest deadlines would be desirable.

The comment file overwhelmingly supported the change in today's final rule—in other words, commenters took the view that the potential costs associated with the 2013 residual-interest rule appear to outweigh the risk that some of their funds could be lost in the event their FCM becomes insolvent after the time of settlement, but before an FCM collects margin deficits. Indeed, the risk that an FCM becomes insolvent during this precise timeframe without some prior notice to its customers of financial stress at the FCM is very low. Notably, many comments supporting this final rule were filed by FCM customers, the constituency rule 1.22 is designed to protect, and who appreciate the aforementioned risk. The Commission must respect the comment process and the FCM-customer viewpoint that today's rule better balances the cost and benefits of rule 1.22.

Another relevant factor that supports the change to rule 1.22 is the risk of concentration within the FCM community as a whole, and what that means for the costs to customers of trading in derivatives and its related impacts on liquidity in those markets. The number of registered FCMs has decreased in recent years, which may make it more difficult for customers to manage their risk by limiting their ability to access the markets, or by making it more difficult for them to allocate funds between multiple FCMs to minimize concentration risk.

The results of the public comment process, when considered in the context of the overall stronger regulatory framework for FCMs and the concentration in the FCM community described above, give me the comfort needed to support the changes to 1.22 contained in today's release.

On the other hand, without the five-year phase-in period, we might see a reluctance by the industry to move as swiftly to streamline margin-collection practices and to take advantage of any technological solutions that may be developed. Some recent technology advances hold the promise to reduce the very sorts of risks addressed by rule 1.22 by facilitating real-time margin collection and settlement. To be sure, those advances would have been more seriously and expeditiously tested and—if they demonstrate merit—embraced without the change to rule 1.22 we are releasing today. In other words, just as in 2013 when the existing rule was finalized, I continue to believe that the most costly solutions for complying with rule 1.22 that were anticipated by many commenters should not be the ones ultimately embraced by the marketplace. Moreover, given regulatory requirements imposed by other regulators, today members of the clearing ecosystem are exploring a variety of solutions to new compliance and capital burdens that also would ease and enable stricter compliance with rule 1.22, thus minimizing further the likelihood that pre-funding customer margin accounts with FCMs will become the preferred solution to compliance.

Finally, I note that a study and roundtable to review these advancements, and how they might lower risks and related costs, still are mandated by law, and I ask the Chairman to direct staff to move swiftly to comply with these regulatory requirements so that the Commission may act appropriately when and if it needs to. I look forward to continuing to collaborate with staff and market participants as we work towards enhancing the safety and efficiency of our markets.

Appendix 4—Statement of Commissioner J. Christopher Giancarlo

I support the Commission's action to change the residual interest deadline, if necessary or appropriate, only upon a Commission rulemaking following a public comment period. This approach will allow the Commission to better understand the market impacts and operational challenges of moving the residual interest deadline. This approach is especially important given the likely negative impacts on smaller futures commission merchants who provide our farmers, ranchers and rural producers with critical risk management services.

I call on the Commission to take the same deliberative approach to the de minimis exception to the swap dealer definition so that the de minimis level does not automatically adjust from $8 billion to $3 billion, absent a rulemaking with proper notice and comment. Like today's proposal, the Commission should only adjust the de minimis threshold if necessary or appropriate after it has considered the data and weighed public comments.

[FR Doc. 2015-06548 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234; FRL-9923-98-OAR] RIN 2060-AS39 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Steam Generating Units AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

On November 19, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed amending certain reporting requirements in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Steam Generating Units (Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS)) rule. This final rule amends the reporting requirements in the MATS rule by temporarily requiring owners or operators of affected sources to submit certain required emissions and compliance reports to the EPA through the Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS) Client Tool, and the rule temporarily suspends the requirement for owners or operators of affected sources to submit certain reports using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).

DATES:

This final rule is effective on March 24, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 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 publically available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Barrett Parker, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5635; fax number: (919) 541-3207; and email address: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Organization of This Document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Why is the EPA issuing a final rule? II. Does this final rule apply to me? III. What are the amendments made by this final rule? IV. Public Comments and Responses A. Support for the Proposed Approach B. Opposition to the Proposed Approach C. Other Comments V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) I. Why is the EPA issuing a final rule?

The EPA is finalizing its proposed rule with revisions, and this final rule replaces the existing requirements that became effective on January 5, 2015, pursuant to a direct final rule published on November 19, 2014. See 79 FR 68840 and 79 FR 68795. We also respond to comments in this final rule. See 79 FR 68796.

II. Does this final rule apply to me?

Categories and entities potentially regulated by this final rule include:

Category NAICS Code1 Examples of Regulated Entities Industry 221112 Fossil fuel-fired electric steam generating units. Federal government 2 221122 Fossil fuel-fired electric steam generating units owned by the federal government. State/local/tribal government 2 221122 Fossil fuel-fired electric steam generating units owned by states, tribes or municipalities. 921150 Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units in Indian country. 1 North American Industry Classification System. 2 Federal, state or local government-owned and operated establishments are classified according to the activity in which they are engaged.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this final rule. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this final rule, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.9981. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13.

III. What are the amendments made by this final rule?

This final rule amends the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.10031(f) of the MATS rule at 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU. The final MATS rule required affected sources to submit certain MATS emissions and compliance information electronically, using either the CEDRI or the ECMPS Client Tool. The EPA developed these two systems prior to the MATS rule for the electronic submittal of emissions data from many source categories. CEDRI is currently used by owners or operators of sources regulated under 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 63 to submit performance test reports and other air emissions reports. ECMPS is used to report emissions data under the Clean Air Act title IV Acid Rain Program and other programs that are required to continuously monitor and report emissions according to 40 CFR part 75. These two systems have enhanced the way source owners and operators report emissions data to the EPA by providing a streamlined and standardized electronic approach.

Subsequent to publication of the MATS rule, stakeholders commented that we could improve the reporting efficiency of the MATS rule by requiring all data to be reported to one system instead of two. Stakeholders also commented that one system could benefit the EPA and the public in the review of data submitted by setting one consistent format for all data reported through MATS. Further, because the vast majority of sources covered under the MATS rule have been using the ECMPS Client Tool since 2009, the stakeholders have encouraged the EPA to consider consolidating the electronic reporting under ECMPS.

We agree that requiring reporting to one system will increase the efficiency of reporting and facilitate review of reported data. For these reasons, the agency is beginning the process of consolidating the submission of electronic reports required under the MATS rule to one system—the ECMPS Client Tool. This final rule is the first step in the process. The next step is for the EPA to create a detailed set of reporting instructions and design, develop, beta-test and implement the necessary modifications to the ECMPS Client Tool; however, the EPA cannot complete the second step prior to April 16, 2015, the compliance deadline for the MATS rule. Therefore, we are implementing a phased approach to completing the change in the electronic reporting requirements.

This final rulemaking completes the first step in the agency's plan by removing the requirement to submit MATS compliance reports to CEDRI and requiring source owners or operators to use the ECMPS Client Tool to submit Portable Document Format (PDF) versions of the reports that the current MATS rule requires to be submitted using CEDRI. As stated above, this interim step is necessary because the ECMPS Client Tool is not currently programmed to accept the reports that the MATS rule required sources to submit to CEDRI. The specific reports that must be submitted in PDF format include: Quarterly and annual performance stack test reports; 30- (or 90-) boiler operating day mercury (Hg) Low Emitting EGU (Electric Generating Unit) (LEE) test reports; Relative Accuracy Test Audits (RATA) reports for sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and Hg monitors; Relative Calibration Audit (RCA) and Relative Response Audit (RRA) reports for particulate matter (PM) continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS); 30-boiler operating day rolling average reports for PM CEMS, PM continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS), and approved hazardous air pollutants (HAP) metals CEMS; and semiannual compliance reports. Reports for the performance stack tests, Hg LEE tests, RATAs, RRAs and RCAs typically include a description of the source, the test date(s), a list of attendees, a test protocol, a summary of results, raw field data, and example calculations, and, depending on the method(s) used, may also include the results of sample analyses, quality-assurance information (e.g., leak, bias and drift checks), and instrument calibrations and calibration gas certificates. This final rule does not alter the due dates for any report submittals contained in the final MATS rule. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU.

The EPA recognized that submitting electronic PDF reports is not as desirable as reporting the data in extensible markup language (XML) format, because the information in a PDF report cannot easily be extracted and put in a database format. In view of this, we plan to promulgate an additional data reporting revision to the MATS rule in the second part of our phased approach. In this second part, we plan to develop another rulemaking that requires affected source owners or operators to submit the data elements required in the rule in a structured XML format using the ECMPS Client Tool, which is already in use. The second part of our phased approach will complete the process of conversion of the electronic reporting of data using the ECMPS Client Tool, and the MATS rule will be revised to specify all of the required XML data elements for each type of report. We also plan to develop a detailed set of reporting instructions for each report and to modify ECMPS accordingly, in order to be able to receive and process the data submitted.

In the event we are unable to finalize the rulemaking for the second part of our phased approach for electronic reporting conversion by April 16, 2017, the reporting requirements established in this final rule will revert automatically to the original requirements set forth in the final MATS rulemaking published on February 16, 2012 (77 FR 9303). This trigger is necessary to ensure that the data submitted in the future is consistent with the database accessibility that is associated with information reported in structured XML formats even if the second rulemaking cannot be finalized. Accordingly, this rulemaking includes a date of April 16, 2017, to complete the second part of our phased approach for electronic reporting conversion to the ECMPS Client Tool. The EPA intends to revoke this requirement once the final conversion to the ECMPS Client Tool is complete.

IV. Public Comments and Responses

The direct final and parallel proposed rules received comments from nine persons—two members of the public, one state government representative, four EGU owners or operators and two EGU industry representatives.

A. Support for the Proposed Approach

Most commenters expressed support for the planned two phased approach for merging the electronic reporting systems, as well as the revisions to allow temporary submission of MATS rule emissions and compliance reports through the ECMPS Client Tool and suspension of mandatory submission of certain reports using the CEDRI. Commenters recognized the benefits afforded by the proposed approach, noting that through the use of the transition period, the agency will be able to obtain the necessary information to assure compliance while simultaneously developing final reporting formats and infrastructure for XML reporting. Commenters agree that consolidating all reporting requirements through one system will streamline and simplify requirements, making reporting more efficient and user-friendly, improve the quality of reported emissions data and enable the agency to track compliance effectively. We reviewed and considered these comments and are finalizing the proposed rule, with minor revisions, to implement the first part of our phased approach to merge all MATS rule electronic reporting into the ECMPS Client Tool.

B. Opposition to the Proposed Approach

One commenter, a state government representative, opposed the provisions of the proposed rule on two grounds: (1) The commenter alleges the rule did not contain a requirement for EGU owners or operators to submit full stack test reports; and (2) the commenter indicates that it is improper to include a temporary suspension of the requirement to use the electronic reporting tool (ERT) in preparing and submitting stack test reports electronically.

With regard to the first item, the EPA maintains that the proposed rule did include a requirement to submit complete performance test reports during the interim period. In the proposed rule, the EPA stated that stack test reports were required to be submitted during the transition period: “. . . (t)he specific reports that must be submitted in PDF format include: Quarterly and annual performance stack test reports . . .” and “. . . (r)eports for the performance stack tests . . . typically include a description of the source, the test date(s), a list of attendees, a test protocol, a summary of results, raw field data, and example calculations, and, depending on the method(s) used, may also include the results of sample analyses, quality-assurance information (e.g., bias and drift checks), instrument calibrations, and calibration gas certificates . . .” (79 FR 68797). Other commenters agreed with the EPA's view of the requirements while some believed that the requirement to submit the test reports was only triggered upon request by the permitting authority. To address any ambiguity on this issue, we are revising the proposed rule and expressly requiring submission of emissions test reports in the final rule.

With regard to the second item, we agree with the state representative who commented that “. . . (s)ubmittal of stack test reports using ERT will allow (regulatory agencies) to independently verify emissions calculations without having to re-enter data into separate spreadsheets for re-calculation. ERT does the calculations and can include all raw field and laboratory data as attachments . . . .” These are among the reasons we mandated use of the ERT in both the Information Collection Request and the MATS rule. Moreover, we agree with the state representative that the “. . . ERT can generate a full PDF report that could be submitted to ECMPS with minimal effort . . . .” Indeed, we maintain that using the “one-touch” ERT feature to create PDF versions of ERT-developed reports is the easiest way to meet the interim electronic reporting requirements. However, at the present time, the ERT does not support every MATS rule-related test method, quality assurance approach or performance specification (PS), e.g., RCA or RRA for PM CEMS and PS-11 for PM CEMS. Moreover, despite the efficiency and ease of using the “one-touch” capability of the ERT for the majority of MATS rule related test methods, quality assurance approaches or PS, the ERT is not the sole means of developing PDF versions of required reports. We considered requiring EGU owners or operators to use the ERT's PDF creation feature for those reports that can be developed through the current version of the ERT, but decided against it for concerns that mandated use of two separate systems during the interim period could be inefficient. While we believe many EGU owners or operators will choose to use the ERT's cost-effective PDF creation approach when possible, the rule does not require its use.

C. Other Comments

Even though comments on the proposed rule were to be limited to issues directly associated with the electronic reporting changes covered in 40 CFR 63.10031, commenters provided other comments. One industry representative sought assurance that under the interim rule, EGU owners or operators could use self-generated forms that included relevant information per the aforementioned preamble language (79 CFR 68797), going on to assert that the only formatting specification is that the reports be submitted in PDF format. The industry representative expressed support for the proposed rule if those assertions were correct. Commenters are correct, provided the necessary information is included in a reasonable manner to allow review in the electronic PDF versions of the reports.

Industry commenters also opposed the proposed rule to the extent it required EGU owners or operators to use the ERT or CEDRI forms to create the reports that will be submitted in PDF format, believing that the rule revision would not provide any relief if their understanding were correct. While we disagree with the commenters' views that using the ERT or CEDRI to create PDF versions of reports or forms would not provide relief, the rule neither requires nor prohibits during the interim period preparation or submission of PDF reports or forms using the ERT or CEDRI. We also note that the current versions of the ERT or CEDRI do support notice of compliance (NOC) status reporting and the majority of MATS rule-related test methods, quality assurance approaches and PS, including all associated requisite calculations and validations. For this reason, the commenters' concerns are misplaced.

Industry commenters also commented that some in the regulated community might be confused over the reporting requirements and misinterpret the provisions such that only PDF versions of ERT or CEDRI generated reports or forms would be allowed for submission during the interim period. Both commenters suggested we provide guidance, or, if necessary, additional rule language after the first sentence of 40 CFR 63.10031(f)(6), to clarify the role of the ERT and CEDRI for data submittal during the interim reporting phase. We considered these comments and decided that such guidance or rule language is unnecessary, as the ERT is not required to be used during the interim period. With regard to reporting requirements during the transition period, as mentioned earlier, the use of the CEDRI to submit reports to our WebFIRE database will be suspended, the information that would have been reported through the CEDRI must be submitted to the ECMPS in PDF format and the deadline for submitting reports remains unchanged. We will make the necessary adjustments to the ECMPS to enable the PDF reports to be submitted. Note that submission of a PDF version of a test report during this interim period is sufficient, provided that the test report contains sufficient information to assess compliance and to determine whether the testing has been done properly.

One commenter expressed concern with using the ERT and CEDRI in the interim period because, in his view, those platforms are not capable of accepting certain MATS reports, such as NOC status reports and 30-boiler operating day averages from PM CEMS. Moreover, the commenter believes using the ERT would be inefficient because, in his view, it was not designed to handle MATS rule data, such as those from PS-11, RCAs and RRAs. Finally, the commenter believes the usefulness of ERT collected data is limited because, in his view, the ERT neither performs the requisite calculations for quality assurance tests nor validates test results in accordance with method acceptance criteria. As stated above, the rule neither requires nor prohibits during the interim period preparation or submission of PDF reports or forms using the ERT or CEDRI. We also note that the current versions of the ERT or CEDRI do support NOC status reporting and the majority of MATS rule related test methods, quality assurance approaches and PS, including all associated requisite calculations and validations. While not a part of this rulemaking, we soon expect the ERT will be able to handle all of the remaining MATS rule related test methods, quality assurance approaches and PS, which will be important if the agency does not complete the revisions to the ECMPS. In addition, we expect the ECMPS Client Tool to be revised to accept all MATS rule related electronic reporting during the second part of our phased approach such that the ECMPS will be the sole means for providing MATS reports electronically.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0567. The agency believes this action does not impose an information collection burden because it does not change the information collection requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This amendment does not create any new requirements or burdens, and no costs are associated with this amendment. See 79 FR 68795 at 68798 (November 19, 2014).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The final amendments impose no requirements on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

This action does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The final amendments are either clarifications or alternate, temporary reporting instructions which will neither increase nor decrease environmental protection.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: March 9, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart UUUUU-National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Steam Generating Units 2. Section 63.10031 is amended by: a. Revising the first sentence in each of the following paragraphs: (f) introductory text, (f)(1), (2), and (4); and b. Revising paragraphs (f)(5) and (6).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 63.10031 What reports must I submit and when?

(f) On or after April 16, 2017, within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test, you must submit the performance test reports required by this subpart to EPA's WebFIRE database by using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is accessed through EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (www.epa.gov/cdx). * * *

(1) On or after April 16, 2017, within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS (SO2, PM, HCl, HF, and Hg) performance evaluation test, as defined in § 63.2 and required by this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy test audit (RATA) data (or, for PM CEMS, RCA and RRA data) required by this subpart to EPA's WebFIRE database by using CEDRI that is accessed through EPA's CDX (www.epa.gov/cdx). * * *

(2) On or after April 16, 2017, for a PM CEMS, PM CPMS, or approved alternative monitoring using a HAP metals CEMS, within 60 days after the reporting periods ending on March 31st, June 30th, September 30th, and December 31st, you must submit quarterly reports to EPA's WebFIRE database by using the CEDRI that is accessed through EPA's CDX (www.epa.gov/cdx). * * *

(4) On or after April 16, 2017, submit the compliance reports required under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section and the notification of compliance status required under § 63.10030(e) to EPA's WebFIRE database by using the CEDRI that is accessed through EPA's CDX (www.epa.gov/cdx). * * *

(5) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the requirements in paragraphs (f) introductory text and (f)(1) through (4) of this section must be sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13. If acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or operator of an EGU, these reports may be submitted on electronic media. The Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject to paragraphs (f) introductory text and (f)(1) through (4) of this section in paper format.

(6) Prior to April 16, 2017, all reports subject to electronic submittal in paragraphs (f) introductory text, (f)(1), (2), and (4) shall be submitted to the EPA at the frequency specified in those paragraphs in electronic portable document format (PDF) using the ECMPS Client Tool. Each PDF version of a submitted report must include sufficient information to assess compliance and to demonstrate that the testing was done properly. The following data elements must be entered into the ECMPS Client Tool at the time of submission of each PDF file:

(i) The facility name, physical address, mailing address (if different from the physical address), and county;

(ii) The ORIS code (or equivalent ID number assigned by EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD)) and the Facility Registry System (FRS) ID;

(iii) The EGU (or EGUs) to which the report applies. Report the EGU IDs as they appear in the CAMD Business System;

(iv) If any of the EGUs in paragraph (f)(6)(iii) of this section share a common stack, indicate which EGUs share the stack. If emissions data are monitored and reported at the common stack according to part 75 of this chapter, report the ID number of the common stack as it is represented in the electronic monitoring plan required under § 75.53 of this chapter;

(v) If any of the EGUs described in paragraph (f)(6)(iii) of this section are in an averaging plan under § 63.10009, indicate which EGUs are in the plan and whether it is a 30- or 90-day averaging plan;

(vi) The identification of each emission point to which the report applies. An “emission point” is a point at which source effluent is released to the atmosphere, and is either a dedicated stack that serves one of the EGUs identified in paragraph (f)(6)(iii) of this section or a common stack that serves two or more of those EGUs. To identify an emission point, associate it with the EGU or stack ID in the CAMD Business system or the electronic monitoring plan (e.g., “Unit 2 stack,” “common stack CS001,” or “multiple stack MS001”);

(vii) The rule citation (e.g., § 63.10031(f)(1), § 63.10031(f)(2), etc.) for which the report is showing compliance;

(viii) The pollutant(s) being addressed in the report;

(ix) The reporting period being covered by the report (if applicable);

(x) The relevant test method that was performed for a performance test (if applicable);

(xi) The date the performance test was conducted (if applicable); and

(xii) The responsible official's name, title, and phone number.

[FR Doc. 2015-06152 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 721 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0702; FRL-9924-09] RIN 2070-AB27 Revocation of Significant New Uses of Metal Salts of Complex Inorganic Oxyacids AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

EPA is revoking the significant new use rule (SNUR) promulgated under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for two chemical substances that were identified generically as metal salts of complex inorganic oxyacids, which were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs) P-89-576 and P-89-577. EPA issued a SNUR based on a TSCA section 5(e) consent order designating certain activities as significant new uses. EPA has received test data for the chemical substances and is revoking the SNUR.

DATES:

This final rule is effective May 26, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0702, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical information contact: Jim Alwood, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 202 564-8974; email address: [email protected]

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture (including import), process, or use the chemical substances contained in this rule. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

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

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in § 721.5. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA. Importers of chemicals subject to a SNUR must certify their compliance with the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. Importers of the chemical, the subject of this action, would no longer be required to certify compliance with the SNUR requirements if the revocation becomes effective. In addition, if this proposed SNUR revocation becomes effective, persons who export or intend to export the chemical that is the subject of this action would no longer be subject to the TSCA section 12(b)(15 U.S.C. 2611(b) export notification requirements at 40 CFR part 707, that are currently triggered by the SNUR.

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

In the Federal Register of December 17, 2014 (79 FR 75111) (FRL-9919-93), EPA proposed a revocation of the SNUR at 40 CFR 721.4680 for the chemical substances identified generically as metal salts of complex inorganic oxyacids (PMNs P-89-576 and P-89-577). This SNUR designated certain activities as significant new uses based on a TSCA section 5(e) consent order for the PMNs that was issued under TSCA sections 5(e)(1)(A)(i), and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(II) based on a finding that the substances may be produced in substantial quantities and there may be significant (or substantial) human exposure to the substances. Subsequently, a manufacturer of the PMN substances petitioned EPA to revoke the SNUR based on the results of the submitted acute dermal study, a 28-day oral toxicity study, and mutagenicity study for P-89-576. Based on the results of the testing, EPA determined that both substances have inherently low toxicity. EPA received one comment to the proposed SNUR revocation supporting the finding that the PMN substances have low toxicity. EPA is now revoking the SNUR pursuant to 40 CFR 721.185.

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

Upon conclusion of the review forP-89-576 and P-89-577 in 1990, EPA designated certain activities as significant new uses based on a TSCA section 5(e) consent order for the PMNs that was issued under TSCA sections 5(e)(1)(A)(i), and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(II) based on a finding that the substances may be produced in substantial quantities and there may be significant (or substantial) human exposure to the substances. Under § 721.185, EPA may at any time revoke a SNUR for a chemical substance which has been added to subpart E of 40 CFR part 721 if EPA makes one of the determinations set forth in § 721.185(a)(1) through (a)(6). Revocation may occur on EPA's initiative or in response to a written request. Under § 721.185(b)(3), if EPA concludes that a SNUR should be revoked, the Agency will propose the changes in the Federal Register, briefly describe the grounds for the action, and provide interested parties an opportunity to comment.

EPA has determined that the criteria set forth in § 721.185(a)(6) have been satisfied for the chemical substances, proposed the SNUR revocation, and received a public comment supporting the SNUR revocation; therefore, EPA is revoking the SNUR for these chemical substances. The significant new use notification and the recordkeeping requirements at 40 CFR 721.4680 will terminate when the SNUR revocation becomes effective. In addition, export notification under TSCA section 12(b) and 40 CFR part 707, subpart D triggered by the SNUR will no longer be required.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

This rule will revoke or eliminate an existing regulatory requirement and does not contain any new or amended requirements. As such, the Agency has determined that this SNUR revocation would not have any adverse impacts, economic or otherwise.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of regulatory actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). This rule does not contain any information collections subject to approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), (44 U.S.C.3501 et seq.). Since this rule eliminates a reporting requirement, the Agency certifies pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), that this SNUR revocation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

For the same reasons, this action does not require any action under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule has neither Federalism implications, because it will not have substantial direct effects on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), nor Tribal implications, because it will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175 entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined under Executive Order 12866, and it does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children. This action is not subject to Executive Order 1311, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use. Because this action does not involve any technical standards, section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action. This action does not involve special considerations of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

IV. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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 721

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

Dated: March 12, 2015. Maria J. Doa, Director, Chemical Control Division.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 721—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

§ 721.4680 [Removed]
2. Remove § 721.4680.
[FR Doc. 2015-06474 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 48 CFR Part 970 RIN 1991-AC07 Acquisition Regulation: Technical and Administrative Changes to Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation AGENCY:

Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Final rule; technical amendment.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Energy (DOE) is amending the Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR) to make technical and administrative changes to the DEAR by changing the term “Work for Others” to “Strategic Partnership Projects” and “WFO” to “SPP” in every instance where it appears in the DEAR. This final rule does not alter substantive rights or obligations under current law.

DATES:

Effective date: April 23, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lawrence Butler, (202) 287-1945 or [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. Section-by-Section Analysis III. Procedural Requirements A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563. B. Review Under Executive Order 12988. C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act. E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act. F. Review Under Executive Order 13132. G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999. I. Review Under Executive Order 13211. J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001. K. Administrative Procedure Act L. Congressional Notification M. Approval by the Office of the Secretary of Energy. I. Background

Since July 1991, DOE has officially used the term “Work for Others” to describe work performed by its national laboratories for non-DOE entities, including other Federal agencies, universities, and the private sector. Projects performed under the Work for Others program provide solutions to difficult technical challenges vital to maintaining strong national security and promoting economic competitiveness. To better convey the importance of projects that the laboratories perform for other entities, DOE has decided to change the term “Work for Others (WFO) to “Strategic Partnership Projects (SPP)”. The national laboratories/plants/sites and DOE programs assisted in determining the new name. This change will take place immediately and will be implemented throughout DOE and its contractor community in the coming months. None of these changes are substantive or of a nature to cause any significant expense for DOE or its contractors.

II. Section-by-Section Analysis

DOE amends the DEAR as follows:

PART 970-DOE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING CONTRACTS

1. Section 970.1707, is revised to change the term “Work for Others” to “Strategic Partnership Projects”.

2. Section 970.1707-1, is revised to change the term “Work for Others” to “Strategic Partnership Projects” and change the title for DOE Order 481.1C.

3. Section 970.1707-2, is revised to change the term “Work for Others” to “Strategic Partnership Projects”.

4. Section 970.1707-3, is revised to change the term “work for others” to “Strategic Partnership Projects” in both the title and paragraph (a).

5. Section 970.1707-4, is revised to change the term “Work for Others” to “Strategic Partnership Projects”.

6. Section 970.3270, paragraph (a)(6), is revised to change the term “Work for others” to “Strategic Partnership Projects”.

7. Section 970.3501-2, is revised to change the number and title for DOE Order 481.1.

8. Section 970.5217-1, is revised to change the clause title and date, and change the term “Work for Others” to “Strategic Partnership Projects” throughout the clause.

9. Section 970.5227-1, paragraph (b)(ii), is revised to change the term “Work for Others” to “Strategic Partnership Projects”.

10. Section 970.5227-2, paragraph (b)(1)(ii), is revised to change the term “Work for Others” to “Strategic Partnership Projects”.

11. Section 970.5227-3, is revised to change the term “Work for Others” to “Strategic Partnership Projects” and “WFO” to “SPP” throughout the clause.

12. Section 970.5227-11, paragraph (c)(2)(viii), is revised to change the term “Work-for-Others” to “Strategic Partnership Projects”.

13. Section 970.5227-12, paragraph (c)(1)(viii), is revised to change the term “Work-for-Others” to “Strategic Partnership Projects”.

14. Section 970.5232-6, is revised to change the term “Work for Others” to “Strategic Partnership Projects”.

15. Section 970.5235-1, paragraph (c), is revised to change the term “Work for Others” to “Strategic Partnership Projects” and change the number and title for DOE Order 481.1 in paragraph (d).

III. Procedural Requirements A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563

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

DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011)). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. DOE believes that this final rule is consistent with these principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, agencies adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs and, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches maximize net benefits.

B. Review Under Executive Order 12988

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction.

With regard to the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the United States Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or if it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

The regulatory amendments in this notice of final rulemaking to change the term “Work for Others (WFO)” to “Strategic Partnership Projects (SPP)” relate solely to internal agency organization, management or personnel, and as such, are not subject to the requirement for a general notice of proposed rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)) (APA). There is no requirement under the APA or any other law that this rule be proposed for public comment. Consequently, this rulemaking is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule does not impose a collection of information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Existing burdens associated with the collection of certain contractor data under the DEAR have been cleared under OMB control number 1910-4100, with an expiration date of October 31, 2014.

E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

DOE has concluded that promulgation of this final rule falls into a class of actions which would not individually or cumulatively have significant impact on the human environment, as determined by DOE's regulations (10 CFR part 1021, subpart D) implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Specifically, this proposed rule is categorically excluded from NEPA review because the amendments to the DEAR are strictly procedural (categorical exclusion A6). Therefore, this rulemaking does not require an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment pursuant to NEPA.

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order requires agencies to have an accountability process to ensure meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.

On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations (65 FR 13735). DOE has examined the final rule and has determined that it does not preempt State law and does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) generally requires a Federal agency to perform a written assessment of costs and benefits of any rule imposing a Federal mandate with costs to State, local or tribal governments, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. This final rule does not impose a Federal mandate on State, local or tribal governments or on the private sector.

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

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277), requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rulemaking or policy that may affect family well-being. This final rule will have no impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. This final rule is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

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

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

K. Administrative Procedure Act.

The regulatory amendments in this notice of final rulemaking to change the term “Work for Others (WFO) to “Strategic Partnership Projects (SPP)” relate solely to internal agency organization, management or personnel, and as such, are not subject to the requirement for a general notice of proposed rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)) (APA). There is no requirement under the APA or any other law that this rule be proposed for public comment.

L. Congressional Notification

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

M. Approval by the Office of the Secretary of Energy

Issuance of this final rule has been approved by the Office of the Secretary of Energy.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 970

Government procurement.

Issued in Washington, DC on March 12, 2015. Paul Bosco, Director, Office of Acquisition and Project Management, Department of Energy. Joseph Waddell, Deputy Associate Administrator, Acquisition and Project Management, National Nuclear Security Administration.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Department of Energy amends chapter 9 of title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.

PART 970—DOE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING CONTRACTS 1. The authority citation for part 970 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 2201; 2282a; 2282b; 2282c; 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.

2. Section 970.1707 is amended by revising the section heading to read as follows:
970.1707 Strategic Partnership Projects.
970.1707-1 [Amended]
3. Section 970.1707-1 is amended by: a. Removing the term “Work for Others” in two places and adding in their places “Strategic Partnership Projects”; and b. Removing “DOE Order 481.1C, WORK FOR OTHERS (NON-DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FUNDED WORK)”, and adding in its place “DOE Order 481.1C, Strategic Partnership Projects (Formerly Known as Work for Others (Non-Department of Energy Funded Work)), or successor version”.
970.1707-2 [Amended]
4. Section 970.1707-2 is amended by removing the term “Work for Others” in the introductory text and adding in its place “Strategic Partnership Projects”.
5. Section 970.1707-3 is amended by: a. Revising the section heading; and b. In paragraph (a), removing the term “work for others” and adding in its place “strategic partnership projects”.

The revision reads as follows:

970.1707-3 Terms governing Strategic Partnership Projects.
970.1707-4 [Amended]
6. Section 970.1707-4 is amended by removing the term “Work for Others” wherever it appears and adding in its place “Strategic Partnership Projects”.
970.3270 [Amended]
7. Section 970.3270, paragraph (a)(6), is amended by removing the term “Work for others” and adding in its place “Strategic Partnership Projects”.
970.3501-2 [Amended]
8. Section 970.3501-2 is amended by removing “DOE Order 481.1, Work for Others (Non-Department of Energy Funded Work)”, and adding in its place “DOE Order 481.1C, Strategic Partnership Projects (Formerly Known as Work for Others (Non-Department of Energy Funded Work)), or successor version”.
9. Section 970.5217-1 is amended by: a. Revising the section heading and clause heading and date; and b. Removing the terms “work for others”, “Work for Others”, and “Work for others” wherever they appear and adding in their place “Strategic Partnership Projects”; and

The revisions read as follows:

970.5217-1 Strategic Partnership Projects Program. STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP PROJECTS PROGRAM (NON-DOE FUNDED WORK) (April 23, 2015)
970.5227-1 [Amended]
10. Section 970.5227-1, paragraph (b)(1)(ii), is amended by removing the term “Work for Others” and adding in its place “Strategic Partnership Projects”.
970.5227-2 [Amended]
11. Section 970.5227-2, paragraph (b)(1)(ii), is amended by removing the term “Work for Others” and adding in its place “Strategic Partnership Projects”.
970.5227-3 [Amended]
12. Section 970.5227-3 is amended by: a. In paragraphs (a)(2), (c)(1), (n)(4), and (n)(4)(iii), removing the terms “Work for Others” and “Work for others” wherever they appear and adding in their place “Strategic Partnership Projects”; and b. In paragraphs (a)(2), (d)(4), (d)(9), (n)(4) and (n)(4)(iii), removing the acronym “WFO” wherever it appears and adding in its place “SPP”.
970.5227-11 [Amended]
13. Section 970.5227-12, paragraph (c)(2)(viii), is amended by removing the term “Work-for-Others” and adding in its place “Strategic Partnership Projects”.
970.5227-12 [Amended]
14. Section 970.5227-12, paragraph (c)(1)(viii), is amended by removing the term “Work-for-Others” and adding in its place “Strategic Partnership Projects”.
15. Section 970.5232-6 is amended by: a. Revising the section heading and clause heading and date; and b. Removing the term “Work for Others” and adding in its place “Strategic Partnership Projects”.

The revisions read as follows:

970.5232-6 Strategic Partnership Projects funding authorization. STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP PROJECT FUNDING AUTHORIZATION (April 23, 2015)
970.5235-1 [Amended]
16. Section 970.5235-1 is amended by: a. In paragraph (c), removing “48 CFR 970.5217-1, Work for Others Program” and adding in its place “48 CFR 970.5217-1, Strategic Partnership Projects Program”; and b. In paragraph (d), removing “DOE Order 481.1, Work for Others (Non-Department of Energy Funded Work),” and adding in its place “DOE Order 481.1C, Strategic Partnership Projects (Formerly Known as Work for Others (Non-Department of Energy Funded Work)), or successor version”.
[FR Doc. 2015-06572 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
80 56 Tuesday, March 24, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0494; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-160-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY:

We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of inadvertent deployment of a single outboard spoiler during flight. This proposed AD would require replacement of the power control units (PCUs) for the outboard spoilers with upgraded PCUs. We are proposing this AD to prevent leakage of the piston head seal and piston rod seals of the outboard spoiler PCUs, which could result in inadvertent spoiler deployment and reduced controllability of the airplane.

DATES:

We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 8, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc. Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0494; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0494; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-160-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

Discussion

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-22, dated July 16, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

Although [Canadian] AD CF-2009-26 [dated May 21, 2009 (http://wwwapps3.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/CAWIS-SWIMN/attachment.asp?aiid=CF-2009-26&revid=0&cntr=CF&file=CFCF-2009-26.pdf&type=PDE), which corresponds to FAA AD 2009-25-05, Amendment 39-16124 (74 FR 63574, December 4, 2009)] was issued to mandate the upgrade of the spoiler lift/dump valve, it did not reduce the rate of inadvertent single spoiler deployment occurrences. Further investigation revealed that the outboard spoiler PCUs may also be subject to pressure reversals at the PCU main control valve seal, resulting in leakage at the piston head seal and piston rod seals. If not corrected, this condition may result in [inadvertent spoiler deployment and] reduced controllability of the aeroplane.

This [Canadian] AD mandates the replacement of the existing outboard spoiler PCUs with the upgraded PCUs with re-designed seals for better leakage protection.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0494.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 84-27-63, dated October 17, 2013. The service information describes procedures for replacement of the existing outboard spoiler PCUs with upgraded PCUs. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 82 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $27,880, or $340 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2015-0494; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-160-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

We must receive comments by May 8, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001 and 4003 through 4453 inclusive.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by reports of inadvertent deployment of a single outboard spoiler during flight. We are issuing this AD to prevent leakage of the piston head seal and piston rod seals of the outboard spoiler power control units (PCUs), which could result in inadvertent spoiler deployment and reduced controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement of PCUs for the Outboard Spoilers

Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Replace the outboard spoiler PCUs with upgraded PCUs having re-designed seals, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-63, dated October 17, 2013.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(i) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-22, dated July 16, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0494.

(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 12, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-06579 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0495; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-172-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY:

We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracking at certain fastener locations in the window corners of the window belt area. This proposed AD would require repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for fatigue cracking in certain fastener locations in the window corners of the window belt area, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD would also provide an optional preventive modification that would terminate the repetitive inspections at the modified location. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking around fastener locations that could cause multiple window corner skin cracks, which could result in rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES:

We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 8, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0495.

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-2015-0495; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Haytham Alaidy, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6573; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0495; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-172-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

Discussion

We have received reports of cracking at certain fastener locations in the window corners of the window belt. At the time of the crack detection, the airplanes had accumulated between 37,842 and 49,050 total flight cycles. Fatigue cracking of the fastener locations in the window corners of the window belt area between station (STA) 360 and STA 540 and between STA 727 and STA 908, left-side and right-side of the fuselage, at and between stringers S-11 and S-13, if not corrected, could result in cracking around fastener locations that could cause multiple window corner skin cracks, which could result in rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

Related Service Information

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014. The service information describes procedures for inspections, preventative modification, and repairs of the window corners. Refer to this service information for information on the procedures and compliance times. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

FAA's Determination

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information identified previously.

The phrase “related investigative actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Related investigative actions” are follow-on actions that (1) are related to the primary actions, and (2) further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.

The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Corrective actions” are actions that correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

Explanation of “RC” Steps in Service Information

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

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

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:

• In accordance with a method that we approve; or

• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 142 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

Estimated Costs: Required Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspection Up to 2,312 work-hours × $85 per hour = $196,520 per inspection cycle $0 Up to $196,520 per inspection cycle Up to $27,905,840 per inspection cycle.
    Estimated Costs: Optional Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Preventive modification 108 work-hours × $85 per hour = $9,180 $0 $9,180.

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need repairs:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Repair Up to 18 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,530 per repair $0 Up to $1,530 per repair. Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-0495; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-172-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 8, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking at certain fastener locations in the window corners of the window belt area. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking around the fastener locations that could cause multiple window corner skin cracks, which could result in rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspections

    At the applicable time specified in tables 1 and 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, except as required by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD: Do external surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the skin at the 12 fastener locations at the upper forward and lower aft corners of each window between station (STA) 360 and STA 540 and between STA 727 and STA 908, left-side and right-side of the fuselage, at and between stringers S-11 and S-13, and all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections at the applicable times specified in tables 1 and 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, until the terminating action specified in paragraph (h) of this AD is done.

    (h) Optional Preventive Modification

    Accomplishment of a preventive modification in the fastener locations in the window corners of the window belt area between station (STA) 360 and STA 540 and between STA 727 and STA 908, left-side and right-side fuselage, at and between stringers S-11 and S-13, terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD at the modified location only. The modification, including all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, must be done in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.

    (i) Exceptions to the Service Bulletin Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

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

    (4) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Haytham Alaidy, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6447; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected].

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view the referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 13, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06574 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0493; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-184-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model 188 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the upper and lower wing skin planks at the attachment of the main landing gear (MLG) ribs at certain wing-stations are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would require an inspection (for cracking) and modification of the chordwise fastener rows of the upper and lower wing planks at the attachments to the MLG ribs at certain wing-stations. We are proposing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the upper and lower wing skin planks at the attachment of the MLG ribs, which could result in failure of the wing.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S. Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 30063; telephone 770-494-5444; fax 770-494-5445; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/TechPubs.html. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0493; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5554; fax: 404-474-5605; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0493; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-184-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    Structural fatigue damage is progressive. It begins as minute cracks, and those cracks grow under the action of repeated stresses. This can happen because of normal operational conditions and design attributes, or because of isolated situations or incidents such as material defects, poor fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, dings, or scratches. Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally. Global fatigue damage is general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. Multiple-site damage is global damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Global damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site-damage and multiple-element-damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane, in a condition known as WFD. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.

    The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.

    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.

    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.

    This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH indicating that the upper and lower wing skin planks at the attachment of the MLG ribs are subject to WFD. The root cause of WFD is fatigue cracks manifesting and growing simultaneously at similar structural details and stress levels of the upper and lower wing skin planks at the attachment of the MLG ribs. Fatigue cracking is increasingly likely as the airplane is operated and aged, and without intervention, fatigue cracking of the upper and lower wing skin planks at the attachment of the MLG ribs could result in failure of the wing.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Lockheed Martin Electra 88 Service Bulletin 721, dated April 30, 2014. This service bulletin describes procedures to do a bolt hole eddy current (BHEC) inspection for cracking and modification of the chordwise fastener rows of the upper and lower wing planks at the attachments to the MLG ribs at wing-station (WS) 167 and WS 209 by removing the original fasteners and replacing them with new first oversize fasteners of the same type or approved substitute type for original fasteners. Corrective actions include repairing any cracking before further flight. The compliance times for the inspection and modification are specified at the following times.

    • For WS 167 lower: Before the accumulation of 33,300 total flight hours.

    • For WS 167 upper: Before the accumulation of 23,200 total flight hours.

    • For WS 209 lower: Before the accumulation of 31,500 total flight hours.

    • For WS 209 upper: Before the accumulation of 35,400 total flight hours.

    This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.”

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Operators should note that, although the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Martin Electra 88 Service Bulletin 721, dated April 30, 2014, describe procedures for reporting any damage detected to the manufacturer, this proposed AD would not require those actions.

    Although Lockheed Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/721, dated April 30, 2014, specifies that operators may contact the manufacturer for disposition of certain repair conditions, this proposed AD would require operators to repair those conditions in accordance with a method approved by the FAA.

    Explanation of Compliance Time

    The compliance time for the modification specified in this proposed AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that discrepant structure is modified before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly warrant such an extension.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Inspection and Modification 560 work-hours × $85 per hour = $47,600 $5,000 $52,600 $210,400

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-0493; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-184-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 8, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model 188A and 188C airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 1001 and subsequent.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the upper and lower wing skin planks at the attachment of the main landing gear (MLG) ribs at certain wing-stations are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the upper and lower wing skin planks at the attachment of the MLG ribs, which could result in failure of the wing.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection, Modification, and Corrective Action

    At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: Remove the chordwise fastener rows of the upper and lower wing planks at the attachments to the MLG ribs at wing-station (WS) 167 and WS 209; do a bolt hole eddy current (BHEC) inspection to detect cracking of the fastener rows; and replace the original fasteners with new, first oversize fasteners; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Martin Electra 88 Service Bulletin 721, dated April 30, 2014. If any cracking is found during any inspection required by this paragraph: Before further flight, repair the cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Martin Electra 88 Service Bulletin 721, dated April 30, 2014.

    (1) At the applicable time specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Lockheed Martin Electra 88 Service Bulletin 721, dated April 30, 2014. Where table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Lockheed Martin Electra 88 Service Bulletin 721, dated April 30, 2014, specifies “Flt. Hrs,” this AD specifies “total flight hours.”

    (2) Within 365 days or 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    (h) No Reporting

    Although Lockheed Martin Electra 88 Service Bulletin 721, dated April 30, 2014, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5554; fax: 404-474-5605; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S. Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 30063; telephone 770-494-5444; fax 770-494-5445; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/TechPubs.html. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 12, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06576 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0492; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-232-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of a disconnect between the elevator lever and control rod. This proposed AD would require replacement of left and right fixed control rods and lever assemblies of the elevator control system. We are proposing this AD to prevent a disconnect between the elevator lever and control rod, which could lead to un-commanded elevator movement of the associated control surface, a large difference between the position of the left and the right elevator control surface, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane and degradation of the structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0492; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0492; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-232-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-44, dated December 9, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During an engineering review of the Elevator Control system, it was discovered that a disconnect between the elevator lever and control rod could lead to uncommanded elevator movement of the associated control surface. This uncommanded movement may cause a large difference between the position of the left and the right elevator control surface resulting in reduced controllability of the aeroplane and degradation of the structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer.

    This [Canadian] AD mandates the replacement of the existing elevator lever assemblies and control rods with newly designed ones, which will prevent a disconnect between the components of the elevator control system should a failure occur.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0492.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-17-062, Revision B, dated October 10, 2014. This service information describes procedures for replacing the elevator lever assemblies and control rods. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 400 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 14 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $6,712 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $3,160,800, or $7,902 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2015-0492; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-232-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 8, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, serial number (S/N) 10002 through 10337 inclusive.

    (ii) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, S/N 15001 through 15298 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of a disconnect between the elevator lever and control rod. We are issuing this AD to prevent a disconnect between the elevator lever and control rod, which could lead to un-commanded elevator movement of the associated control surface, a large difference between the position of the left and the right elevator control surface, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane and degradation of the structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Replacement of Elevator Lever Assemblies and Control Rods

    Within 9,200 flight hours or 5 years, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD: Replace the left and right fixed control rods and lever assemblies of the elevator control system with newly designed control rods and lever assemblies, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier, Inc. Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, Revision B, dated October 10, 2014.

    (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, dated December 12, 2013; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, Revision A, dated April 1, 2014.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-44, dated December 9, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0492.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 12, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06563 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0669; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-038-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH) Helicopters AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD) (previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH) Model MBB-BK 117 A-1, A-3, A-4, B-1, B-2, C-1, and C-2 helicopters. This proposed AD would require an initial and recurring inspection of the N2 control arm and, depending on the outcome of the inspection, repairing or replacing the N2 control arm. This proposed AD is prompted by a report of a heavily corroded and broken N2 control arm. The proposed actions are intended to detect corrosion, a crack, or a scratch in the N2 control arm, which could lead to failure of the N2 control arm, a drop in rotor speed, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to the “Mail” address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    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 proposed 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 (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0669.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Blyn, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

    Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued EASA AD No. 2013-0154, dated July 22, 2013, to correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (now AHD) Model MBB-BK117 A-1, A-3, A-4, B-1, B-2, C-1, and C-2 helicopters. EASA advises of an incident with a Model MBB-BK117 C-2 helicopter that dropped rotor speed (RPM) within the green range and could not be recovered to nominal value. According to EASA, an inspection of the engine N2 control system revealed a heavily corroded and broken N2 control arm. EASA advises that under certain flight conditions and power demands, a broken N2 control arm can cause a significant and non-recoverable drop in RPM. As a result, EASA AD No. 2013-0154 requires an initial and repetitive inspection of the N2 control arm for corrosion, damage, and scratches, and depending on the outcome of the inspection, repairing or replacing the N2 control arm.

    FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51

    Eurocopter issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) MBB-BK117-60A-126 for Model MBB-BK 117 A-1, A-3, A-4, B-1, B-2, and C-1 helicopters, and ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-6A-005 for Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, both Revision 0, and both dated June 24, 2013. The Eurocopter ASBs specify inspecting the N2 control arm for corrosion, damage, and scratches and, depending on the outcome of the inspection, either repairing or replacing the affected parts. The Eurocopter ASBs also specify performing the inspection with each 12-month inspection until the N2 inspection requirements are incorporated into the aircraft maintenance manual. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require repetitive visual inspections of the N2 control arm for corrosion, a crack, or a scratch. This proposed AD would require repairing any N2 control arm with corrosion or a scratch less than 0.020 inch in depth and replacing any N2 control arm with exfoliation corrosion, a crack, or with corrosion or a scratch 0.020 inch or greater in depth.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD allows a noncumulative tolerance of 3 months in the compliance time for the initial inspection on helicopters with less than 2 years from the date of first flight and for the repetitive inspections, and this proposed AD would not.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 441 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Inspecting the N2 control arm would require about one work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and $37,485 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle. Repairing the N2 control arm would require about four work-hours for an estimated labor cost of $340. Replacing the N2 control arm would require about three work-hours for an estimated labor cost of $255. Parts to replace the N2 control arm for Model MBB-BK 117 A-1, A-3, A-4, B-1, B-2, and C-1 helicopters would cost about $2,743 for a total estimated cost of $2,998. Parts to replace the N2 control arm for a Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopter would cost about $4,500 for a total estimated cost of $4,755.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD) (Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH): Docket No. FAA-2015-0669; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-038-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to AHD Model MBB-BK 117 A-1, A-3, A-4, B-1, B-2, C-1, and C-2 helicopters, certificated in any category.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as corrosion, a crack, or a scratch on an N2 control arm. This condition could lead to failure of the N2 control arm, resulting in a reduction in rotor speed and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    (c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 26, 2015.

    (d) Compliance

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

    (e) Required Actions

    For helicopters that have not reached 2 years from the date of first flight, within 1 year or before reaching 2 years from the date of first flight, whichever occurs first; and for helicopters that have reached or exceeded 2 years from the date of first flight, within 50 hours TIS:

    (1) Visually inspect each N2 control arm for corrosion, a crack, and a scratch as depicted in Figure 1 of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) MBB-BK117-60A-126 or ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-76A-005, both Revision 0 and both dated June 24, 2013, as applicable to your model helicopter.

    (i) If an N2 control arm has corrosion or a scratch less than 0.5 millimeter (mm) (0.020 inch) in depth, before further flight, remove the corrosion and repair the scratch.

    (ii) If an N2 control arm has any exfoliation corrosion, a crack, or has corrosion or a scratch 0.5 mm (0.020 inch) or greater in depth, before further flight, replace the N2 control arm.

    (2) Thereafter, perform the requirements in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD at intervals not to exceed 12 months.

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: James Blyn, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, 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.

    (g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2013-0154, dated July 22, 2013. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No.FAA-2015-0669.

    (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: Engine Controls, 7600.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 17, 2015. Lance T. Gant, Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06567 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Parts 100 and 165 [Docket No. USCG-2014-0865] RIN 1625-AA08; 1625-AA00 Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Recurring Marine Events Held in the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England Captain of the Port Zone AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to update special local regulations and permanent safety zones in the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England Captain of the Port Zone for annual recurring marine events. When enforced, these proposed special local regulations and safety zones would restrict vessels from portions of water areas during certain annually recurring events. The proposed special local regulations and safety zones are intended to expedite public notification and ensure the protection of the maritime public and event participants from the hazards associated with certain maritime events.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 23, 2015. Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2014-0865 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 instructions on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Chief Marine Science Technician Chris Bains, Waterways Management Division at Coast Guard Sector Northern New England, telephone (207) 347-5003, 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 COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

    1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2014-0865), 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 (via 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 via www.regulations.gov, 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-2014-0865] 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-2014-0865) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    3. Privacy Act

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

    4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one using one of the four methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

    B. Regulatory History and Information

    The two regulatory sections that the Coast Guard proposes to amend were originally established in 2011. The final rule for 33 CFR 100.120 and 165.171 was published on March 30, 2011 (76 FR 17532 and 76 FR 17537). The final rule was created in order to reduce administrative overhead, expedite public notification of events, and ensure the protection of the maritime public during approximately 180 marine events in the Sector Northern New England area. Each year since these two sections were created, the table in each regulatory section has been updated to reflect changes in regular recurring events, such as additions or deletions of events or updates to pertinent event details. The Coast Guard has received no comments from the public since these two sections were originally established.

    C. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the proposed rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish safety zones and special local regulations.

    Swim events, fireworks displays, and marine events are held on an annual recurring basis on the navigable waters within the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England COTP Zone. In the past, the Coast Guard has established special local regulations, regulated areas, and safety zones for these annual recurring events on a case by case basis to ensure the protection of the maritime public and event participants from the hazards associated with these events. As mentioned above, the Coast Guard has not received public comments or concerns regarding the impact to waterway traffic from the Coast Guard's regulations associated with these annually recurring events. In the past year, events were assessed for their likelihood to recur in subsequent years or to discontinue, and were added to or deleted from the tables accordingly. In addition, minor changes to existing events were made to ensure the accuracy of event details.

    D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 100.120 (Special Local Regulations) and 33 CFR 165.171 (Safety Zones). The proposed rule would update the tables of annual recurring events in the existing regulations for the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England COTP Zone. The tables provide the event name, sponsor, and type, as well as approximate times, dates, and locations of the events. Advanced public notification of specific times, dates, regulated areas, and enforcement periods for each event will be provided through appropriate means, which may include, but are not limited to, the Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, or a Notice of Enforcement published in the Federal Register at least 30 days prior to the event date. If an event does not have a date and time listed in this regulation, then the precise dates and times of the enforcement period for that event will be announced through a Local Notice to Mariners and, if time permits, a Notice of Enforcement in the Federal Register.

    E. Regulatory Analyses

    The Coast Guard developed this proposed 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 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, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.

    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be minimal. Although this regulation may have some impact on the public, the potential impact will be minimized for the following reasons: the Coast Guard is only modifying an existing regulation to account for new information.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

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

    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: Owners or operators of vessels intending to transit, fish, or anchor in the areas where the listed annual recurring events are being held. The proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities for all of the same reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above.

    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 so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 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 would call 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 have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this 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 rulemaking 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.

    A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed rule involves water activities including swimming events and fireworks displays. This rule may be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) (Safety Zones) and (34)(h) (Special Local Regulations) of the Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Waterways.

    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 parts 100 and 165 as follows:

    PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for Part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. In § 100.120, revise the table to read as follows:
    § 100.120 Special Local Regulations; Marine Events Held in the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England COTP Zone. Table to § 100.120 5.0 May occur May through September 5.1 Tall Ships Visiting Portsmouth • Event Type: Regatta and Boat Parade • Sponsor: Portsmouth Maritime Commission, Inc. • Date: A four day event from Friday through Monday.* • Time (Approximate): 9:00 am to 8:00 pm each day • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Portsmouth Harbor, New Hampshire in the vicinity of Castle Island within the following points (NAD 83): 43°03′11″ N, 070°42′26″ W. 43°03′18″ N, 070°41′51″ W. 43°04′42″ N, 070°42′11″ W. 43°04′28″ N, 070°44′12″ W. 43°05′36″ N, 070°45′56″ W. 43°05′29″ N, 070°46′09″ W. 43°04′19″ N, 070°44′16″ W. 43°04′22″ N, 070°42′33″ W. 6.0 JUNE 6.1 Bar Harbor Blessing of the Fleet • Event Type: Regatta and Boat Parade • Sponsor: Town of Bar Harbor, Maine • Date: A one day event between the 15th of May and the 15th of June.* • Time (Approximate): 12:00 pm to 1:30 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Bar Harbor, Maine within the following points (NAD 83): 44°23′32″ N, 068°12′19″ W. 44°23′30″ N, 068°12′00″ W. 44°23′37″ N, 068°12′00″ W. 44°23′35″ N, 068°12′19″ W. 6.2 Charlie Begin Memorial Lobster Boat Races • Event Type: Power Boat Race • Sponsor: Boothbay Harbor Lobster Boat Race Committee • Date: A one day event in June.* • Time (Approximate): 10:00 am to 3:00 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Boothbay Harbor, Maine in the vicinity of John's Island within the following points (NAD 83): 43°50′04″ N, 069°38′37″ W. 43°50′54″ N, 069°38′06″ W. 43°50′49″ N, 069°37′50″ W. 43°50′00″ N, 069°38′20″ W. 6.3 Rockland Harbor Lobster Boat Races • Event Type: Power Boat Race • Sponsor: Rockland Harbor Lobster Boat Race Committee • Date: A one day event in June.* • Time (Approximate): 9:00 am to 5:00 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Rockland Harbor, Maine in the vicinity of the Rockland Breakwater Light within the following points (NAD 83): 44°05′59″ N, 069°04′53″ W. 44°06′43″ N, 069°05′25″ W. 44°06′50″ N, 069°05′05″ W. 44°06′05″ N, 069°04′34″ W. 6.4 Windjammer Days Parade of Ships • Event Type: Tall Ship Parade • Sponsor: Boothbay Region Chamber of Commerce
  • • Date: A one day event in June.*
  • • Time (Approximate): 12:00 pm to 5:00 pm
  • • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Boothbay Harbor, Maine in the vicinity of Tumbler's Island within the following points (NAD 83):
  • 43°51′02″ N, 069°37′33″ W. 43°50′47″ N, 069°37′31″ W. 43°50′23″ N, 069°37′57″ W. 43°50′01″ N, 069°37′45″ W. 43°50′01″ N, 069°38′31″ W. 43°50′25″ N, 069°38′25″ W. 43°50′49″ N, 069°37′45″ W. 6.5 Bass Harbor Blessing of the Fleet Lobster Boat Race • Event Type: Power Boat Race • Sponsor: Tremont Congregational Church
  • • Date: A one day event in June.*
  • • Time (Approximate): 10:00 am to 2:00 pm
  • • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Bass Harbor, Maine in the vicinity of Lopaus Point within the following points (NAD 83):
  • 44°13′28″ N 068°21′59″ W. 44°13′20″ N 068°21′40″ W. 44°14′05″ N 068°20′55″ W. 44°14′12″ N 068°21′14″ W. 6.6 Long Island Lobster Boat Race • Event Type: Power Boat Race • Sponsor: Long Island Lobster Boat Race Committee • Date: A one day event in June.* • Time (Approximate): 10:00 am to 3:00 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Casco Bay, Maine in the vicinity of Great Ledge Cove and Dorseys Cove off the north west coast of Long Island, Maine within the following points (NAD 83): 43°41′59″ N, 070°08′59″ W. 43°42′04″ N, 070°09′10″ W. 43°41′41″ N, 070°09′38″ W. 43°41′36″ N, 070°09′30″ W. 7.0 JULY 7.1 Moosabec Lobster Boat Races • Event Type: Power Boat Race • Sponsor: Moosabec Boat Race Committee • Date: A one day event held near July 4th.* • Time (Approximate): 10:00 am to 12:30 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Jonesport, Maine within the following points (NAD 83): 44°31′21″ N, 067°36′44″ W. 44°31′36″ N, 067°36′47″ W. 44°31′44″ N, 067°35′36″ W. 44°31′29″ N, 067°35′33″ W. 7.2 The Great Race • Event Type: Rowing and Paddling Boat Race • Sponsor: Franklin County Chamber of Commerce • Date: A one day event on a Sunday between the 15th of August and the 15th of September.* • Time (Approximate): 10:00 am to 12:30 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Lake Champlain in the vicinity of Saint Albans Bay within the following points (NAD 83): 44°47′18″ N, 073°10′27″ W. 44°47′10″ N, 073°08′51″ W. 7.3 Searsport Lobster Boat Races • Event Type: Power Boat Race • Sponsor: Searsport Lobster Boat Race Committee • Date: A one day in July.* • Time (Approximate): 9:00 am to 4:00 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Searsport Harbor, Maine within the following points (NAD 83): 44°26′50″ N, 068°55′20″ W. 44°27′04″ N, 068°55′26″ W. 44°27′12″ N, 068°54′35″ W. 44°26′59″ N, 068°54′29″ W. 7.4 Stonington Lobster Boat Races • Event Type: Power Boat Race • Sponsor: Stonington Lobster Boat Race Committee • Date: A one day event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 am to 3:30 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Stonington, Maine within the following points (NAD 83): 44°08′55″ N, 068°40′12″ W. 44°09′00″ N, 068°40′15″ W. 44°09′11″ N, 068°39′42″ W. 44°09′07″ N, 068°39′39″ W. 7.5 Mayor's Cup Regatta • Event Type: Sailboat Parade • Sponsor: Plattsburgh Sunrise Rotary • Date: A one day event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 10:00 am to 4:00 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Cumberland Bay on Lake Champlain in the vicinity of Plattsburgh, New York within the following points (NAD 83): 44°41′26″ N, 073°23′46″ W. 44°40′19″ N, 073°24′40″ W.
  • 44°42′01″ N, 073°25′22″ W.
  • 7.6 The Challenge Race • Event Type: Rowing and Paddling Boat Race • Sponsor: Lake Champlain Maritime Museum • Date: A one day event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 11:00 am to 3:00 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Lake Champlain in the vicinity of Button Bay State Park within the following points (NAD 83): 44°12′25″ N, 073°22′32″ W. 44°12′00″ N, 073°21′42″ W. 44°12′19″ N, 073°21′25″ W. 44°13′16″ N, 073°21′36″ W. 7.7 Yarmouth Clam Festival Paddle Race • Event Type: Rowing and Paddling Boat Race • Sponsor: Maine Island Trail Association • Date: A one day event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 am to 4:00 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters in the vicinity of the Royal River outlet and Lane's Island within the following points (NAD 83): 43°47′47″ N, 070°08′40″ W. 43°47′50″ N, 070°07′13″ W. 43°47′06″ N, 070°07′32″ W. 43°47′17″ N, 070°08′25″ W. 7.8 Maine Windjammer Lighthouse Parade • Event Type: Wooden Boat Parade • Sponsor: Maine Windjammer Association • Date: A one day event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Rockland Harbor, Maine in the vicinity of the Rockland Harbor Breakwater within the following points (NAD 83): 44°06′14″ N, 069°03′48″ W. 44°05′50″ N, 069°03′47″ W. 44°06′14″ N, 069°05′37″ W. 44°05′50″ N, 069°05′37″ W. 7.9 Friendship Lobster Boat Races • Event Type: Power Boat Race • Sponsor: Friendship Lobster Boat Race Committee • Date: A one day event during a weekend between the 15th of July and the 15th of August.* • Time (Approximate): 9:30 am to 3:00 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Friendship Harbor, Maine within the following points (NAD 83): 43°57′51″ N, 069°20′46″ W. 43°58′14″ N, 069°19′53″ W. 43°58′19″ N, 069°20′01″ W. 43°58′00″ N, 069°20′46″ W. 7.10 Harpswell Lobster Boat Races • Event Type: Power Boat Race • Sponsor: Harpswell Lobster Boat Race Committee • Date: A one day event between the 15th of July and the 15th of August.* • Time (Approximate): 10:00 am to 3:00 pm • Location: The regulated area includes waters of Middle Bay near Harpswell, Maine within the following points (NAD 83): 43°44′15″ N, 070°02′06″ W. 43°44′59″ N, 070°01′21″ W. 43°44′51″ N, 070°01′05″ W. 43°44′06″ N, 070°01′49″ W. 8.0 AUGUST 8.1 Eggemoggin Reach Regatta • Event Type: Wooden Boat Parade • Sponsor: Rockport Marine, Inc. and Brookline Boat Yard • Date: A one day event on a Saturday between the 15th of July and the 15th of August.* • Time (Approximate): 11:00 am to 7:00 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Eggemoggin Reach and Jericho Bay in the vicinity of Naskeag Harbor, Maine within the following points (NAD 83): 44°15′16″ N, 068°36′26″ W. 44°12′41″ N, 068°29′26″ W. 44°07′38″ N, 068°31′30″ W. 44°12′54″ N, 068°33′46″ W. 8.2 Southport Rowgatta Rowing and Paddling Boat Race • Event Type: Rowing and Paddling Boat Race • Sponsor: Boothbay Region YMCA • Date: A one day event in August.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 am to 3:00 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Sheepscot Bay and Boothbay, on the shore side of Southport Island, Maine within the following points (NAD 83): 43°50′26″ N, 069°39′10″ W. 43°49′10″ N, 069°38′35″ W. 43°46′53″ N, 069°39′06″ W. 43°46′50″ N, 069°39′32″ W. 43°49′07″ N, 069°41′43″ W. 43°50′19″ N, 069°41′14″ W. 43°51′11″ N, 069°40′06″ W. 8.3 Winter Harbor Lobster Boat Races • Event Type: Power Boat Race • Sponsor: Winter Harbor Chamber of Commerce • Date: A one day event in August.* • Time (Approximate): 9:00 am to 3:00 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Winter Harbor, Maine within the following points (NAD 83): 44°22′06″ N, 068°05′13″ W. 44°23′06″ N, 068°05′08″ W. 44°23′04″ N, 068°04′37″ W. 44°22′05″ N, 068°04′44″ W. 8.4 Lake Champlain Dragon Boat Festival • Event Type: Rowing and Paddling Boat Race • Sponsor: Dragonheart Vermont • Date: A one day event in August.* • Time (Approximate): 7:00 am to 5:00 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Burlington Bay within the following points (NAD 83): 44°28′49″ N, 073°13′22″ W. 44°28′41″ N, 073°13′36″ W. 44°28′28″ N, 073°13′31″ W. 44°28′38″ N, 073°13′18″ W. 8.5 Merritt Brackett Lobster Boat Races • Event Type: Power Boat Race • Sponsor: Town of Bristol, Maine • Date: A one day event in August.* • Time (Approximate): 10:00 am to 3:00 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Pemaquid Harbor, Maine within the following points (NAD 83): 43°52′16″ N, 069°32′10″ W. 43°52′41″ N, 069°31′43″ W. 43°52′35″ N, 069°31′29″ W. 43°52′09″ N, 069°31′56″ W. 8.6 Multiple Sclerosis Regatta • Event Type: Regatta and Sailboat Race • Sponsor: Maine Chapter, Multiple Sclerosis Society • Date: A one day event in August.* • Time (Approximate): 10:00 am to 4:00 pm • Location: The regulated area for the start of the race includes all waters of Casco Bay, Maine in the vicinity of Peaks Island within the following points (NAD 83): 43°40′24″ N, 070°14′20″ W. 43°40′36″ N, 070°13′56″ W. 43°39′58″ N, 070°13′21″ W. 43°39′46″ N, 070°13′51″ W. 8.7 Multiple Sclerosis Harborfest Lobster Boat/Tugboat Races • Event Type: Power Boat Race • Sponsor: Maine Chapter, National Multiple Sclerosis Society • Date: A one day event in August.* • Time (Approximate): 10:00 am to 3:00 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Portland Harbor, Maine in the vicinity of Maine State Pier within the following points (NAD 83): 43°40′25″ N, 070°14′21″ W. 43°40′36″ N, 070°13′56″ W. 43°39′58″ N, 070°13′21″ W. 43°39′47″ N, 070°13′51″ W. 9.0 SEPTEMBER 9.1 Pirates Festival Lobster Boat Races • Event Type: Power Boat Race • Sponsor: Eastport Pirates Festival • Date: A one day event in September.* • Time (Approximate): 11:00 am to 6:00 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters in the vicinity of Eastport Harbor, Maine within the following points (NAD 83): 44°54′14″ N, 066°58′52″ W. 44°54′14″ N, 068°58′56″ W. 44°54′24″ N, 066°58′52″ W. 44°54′24″ N, 066°58′56″ W. * Date subject to change. Exact date will be posted in Notice of Enforcement and Local Notice to Mariners.
    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 3. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    4. In § 165.171, revise the table to read as follows:
    § 165.171 Safety Zones for fireworks displays and swim events held in Coast Guard Sector Northern New England COTP Zone. TABLE to § 165.171 5.0 MAY 5.1 Ride into Summer • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Gardiner Maine Street • Date: One night event between the 15th of May and the 15th of June.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 pm to 10:00 pm • Location: In the vicinity of the Gardiner Waterfront, Gardiner, Maine in approximate position: 44°13′52″ N, 069°46′08″ W (NAD 83). 6.0 JUNE 6.1 Rotary Waterfront Days Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Gardiner Rotary • Date: Two night event on a Wednesday and Saturday in June.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 pm to 10:00 pm • Location: In the vicinity of the Gardiner Waterfront, Gardiner, Maine in approximate position: 44°13′52″ N, 069°46′08″ W (NAD 83). 6.2 LaKermesse Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Ray Gagne • Date: One night event in June.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 pm to 10:00 pm • Location: Biddeford, Maine in approximate position: 43°29′37″ N, 070°26′47″ W (NAD 83). 6.3 Windjammer Days Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Boothbay Harbor Region Chamber of Commerce • Date: One night event in June.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 pm to 10:30 pm • Location: In the vicinity of McFarland Island, Boothbay Harbor, Maine in approximate position: 43°50′38″ N, 069°37′57″ W (NAD 83). 7.0 JULY 7.1 Vinalhaven 4th of July Fireworks • Event Type: Firework Display • Sponsor: Vinalhaven 4th of July Committee • Date: One night event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 pm to 10:30 pm • Location: In the vicinity of Grime's Park, Vinalhaven, Maine in approximate position: 44°02′34″ N, 068°50′26″ W (NAD 83). 7.2 Burlington Independence Day Fireworks • Event Type: Firework Display • Sponsor: City of Burlington, Vermont • Date: One night event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 9:00 pm to 11:00 pm • Location: From a barge in the vicinity of Burlington Harbor, Burlington, Vermont in approximate position: 44°28′31″ N, 073°13′31″ W (NAD 83). 7.3 Camden 3rd of July Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Camden, Rockport, Lincolnville Chamber of Commerce • Date: One night event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 pm to 10:00 pm • Location: In the vicinity of Camden Harbor, Maine in approximate position: 44°12′32″ N, 069°02′58″ W (NAD 83). 7.4 Bangor 4th of July Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Bangor 4th of July Fireworks • Date: One night event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 pm to 10:30 pm • Location: In the vicinity of the Bangor Waterfront, Bangor, Maine in approximate position: 44°47′27″ N, 068°46′31″ W (NAD 83). 7.5 Bar Harbor 4th of July Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Bar Harbor Chamber of Commerce • Date: One night event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 pm to 10:30 pm • Location: In the vicinity of Bar Harbor Town Pier, Bar Harbor, Maine in approximate position: 44°23′31″ N, 068°12′15″ W (NAD 83). 7.6 Boothbay Harbor 4th of July Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Town of Boothbay Harbor • Date: One night event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 pm to 10:30 pm • Location: In the vicinity of McFarland Island, Boothbay Harbor, Maine in approximate position: 43°50′38″ N, 069°37′57″ W (NAD 83). 7.7 Colchester 4th of July Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Town of Colchester, Recreation Department • Date: One night event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 pm to 10:00 pm • Location: In the vicinity of Bayside Beach and Mallets Bay in Colchester, Vermont in approximate position: 44°32′44″ N, 073°13′10″ W (NAD 83). 7.8 Eastport 4th of July Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Eastport 4th of July Committee • Date: One night event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 9:00 pm to 9:30 pm • Location: From the Waterfront Public Pier in Eastport, Maine in approximate position: 44°54′25″ N, 066°58′55″ W (NAD 83). 7.9 Ellis Short Sand Park Trustee Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: William Burnham • Date: One night event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 8:30 pm to 11:00 pm • Location: In the vicinity of York Beach, Maine in approximate position: 43°10′27″ N, 070°36′26″ W (NAD 83). 7.10 Hampton Beach 4th of July Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Hampton Beach Village District • Date: One night event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 8:30 pm to 11:00 pm • Location: In the vicinity of Hampton Beach, New Hampshire in approximate position: 42°54′40″ N, 070°36′25″ W (NAD 83). 7.11 Jonesport 4th of July Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Jonesport 4th of July Committee • Date: One night event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 pm to 10:30 pm • Location: In the vicinity of Beals Island, Jonesport, Maine in approximate position: 44°31′18″ N, 067°36′43″ W (NAD 83). 7.12 Lubec Bicentennial Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Town of Lubec, Maine • Date: One night event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 pm to 10:30 pm • Location: In the vicinity of the Lubec Public Boat Launch in approximate position: 44°51′52″ N, 066°59′06″ W (NAD 83). 7.13 Main Street Heritage Days 4th of July Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Main Street Inc. • Date: One night event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 pm to 10:30 pm • Location: In the vicinity of Reed and Reed Boat Yard, Woolwich, Maine in approximate position: 43°54′56″ N, 069°48′16″ W (NAD 83). 7.14 Portland Harbor 4th of July Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display Sponsor: Department of Parks and Recreation, Portland, Maine • Date: One night event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 8:30 pm to 10:30 pm • Location: In the vicinity of East End Beach, Portland, Maine in approximate position: 43°40′16″ N, 070°14′44″ W (NAD 83). 7.15 St. Albans Day Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: St. Albans Area Chamber of Commerce • Date: One night event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 9:00 pm to 10:00 pm • Location: From the St. Albans Bay dock in St. Albans Bay, Vermont in approximate position: 44°48′25″ N, 073°08′23″ W (NAD 83). 7.16 Stonington 4th of July Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Deer Isle—Stonington Chamber of Commerce • Date: One night event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 pm to 10:30 pm • Location: In the vicinity of Two Bush Island, Stonington, Maine in approximate position: 44°08′57″ N, 068°39′54″ W (NAD 83). 7.17 Southwest Harbor 4th of July Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Sharon Gilley • Date: One night event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 pm to 10:30 pm • Location: Southwest Harbor, Maine in approximate position: 44°16′25″ N, 068°19′21″ W (NAD 83). 7.18 Prentice Hospitality Group Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Prentice Hospitality Group • Date: One night event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 pm to 10:30 pm • Location: Chebeague Island, Maine in approximate position: 43°45′12″ N, 070°06′27″ W (NAD 83). 7.19 Shelburne Triathlons • Event Type: Swim Event • Sponsor: Race Vermont • Date: Up to three Saturdays throughout July and August.* • Time (Approximate): 7:00 am to 11:00 am • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Lake Champlain in the vicinity of Shelburne Beach in Shelburne, Vermont within a 400 yard radius of the following point (NAD 83): 44°21′45″ N, 075°15′58″ W. 7.20 St. George Days Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks • Sponsor: Town of St. George • Date: One night event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 8:30 pm to 10:30 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Inner Tenants Harbor, ME, in approximate position (NAD 83): 43°57′41.37″ N, 069°12′45″ W. 7.21 Tri for a Cure Swim Clinics and Triathlon • Event Type: Swim Event • Sponsor: Maine Cancer Foundation • Date: A multi-day event held throughout July.* • Time (Approximate): 8:30 am to 11:30 am • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Portland Harbor, Maine in the vicinity of Spring Point Light within the following points (NAD 83): 43°39′01″ N, 070°13′32″ W. 43°39′07″ N, 070°13′29″ W. 43°39′06″ N, 070°13′41″ W. 43°39′01″ N, 070°13′36″ W. 7.22 Richmond Days Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Town of Richmond, Maine • Date: A one day event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 pm to 10:00 pm • Location: From a barge in the vicinity of the inner harbor, Tenants Harbor, Maine in approximate position: 44°08′42″ N, 068°27′06″ W (NAD 83). 7.23 Colchester Triathlon • Event Type: Swim Event • Sponsor: Colchester Parks and Recreation Department • Date: A one day event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 7:00 am to 11:00 am • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Malletts Bay on Lake Champlain, Vermont within the following points (NAD 83): 44°32′18″ N, 073°12′35″ W. 44°32′28″ N, 073°12′56″ W. 44°32′57″ N, 073°12′38″ W. 7.24 Peaks to Portland Swim • Event Type: Swim Event • Sponsor: Cumberland County YMCA • Date: A one day event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 5:00 am to 1:00 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Portland Harbor between Peaks Island and East End Beach in Portland, Maine within the following points (NAD 83): 43°39′20″ N, 070°11′58″ W. 43°39′45″ N, 070°13′19″ W. 43°40′11″ N, 070°14′13″ W. 43°40′08″ N, 070°14′29″ W. 43°40′00″ N, 070°14′23″ W. 43°39′34″ N, 070°13′31″ W. 43°39′13″ N, 070°11′59″ W. 7.25 Friendship Days Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Town of Friendship • Date: A one day event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 pm to 10:30 pm • Location: In the vicinity of the Town Pier, Friendship Harbor, Maine in approximate position: 43°58′23″ N, 069°20′12″ W (NAD 83). 7.26 Bucksport Festival and Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Bucksport Bay Area Chamber of Commerce • Date: A one day event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 pm to 10:30 pm • Location: In the vicinity of the Verona Island Boat Ramp, Verona, Maine, in approximate position: 44°34′9″ N, 068°47′28″ W (NAD 83). 7.27 Nubble Light Swim Challenge • Event Type: Swim Event • Sponsor: Nubble Light Challenge • Date: A one day event in July.* • Time (Approximate): 9:00 am to 12:30 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters around Cape Neddick, Maine and within the following coordinates: 43°10′28″ N, 070°36′26″ W. 43°10′34″ N, 070°36′06″ W. 43°10′30″ N, 070°35′45″ W. 43°10′17″ N, 070°35′24″ W. 43°09′54″ N, 070°35′18″ W. 43°09′42″ N, 070°35′37″ W. 43°09′51″ N, 070°37′05″ W. 7.28 Paul Coulombe Anniversary Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Paul Coulombe • Date: A one day event in July.* • Time: 8:00 pm to 11:30 pm • Location: Pratt Island, Southport, ME, in approximate position: 43°48′44″ N, 069°41′11″ W (NAD 83). 8.0 AUGUST 8.1 Sprucewold Cabbage Island Swim • Event Type: Swim Event • Sponsor: Sprucewold Association • Date: A one day event in August.* • Time (Approximate): 1:00 pm to 6:00 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Linekin Bay between Cabbage Island and Sprucewold Beach in Boothbay Harbor, Maine within the following points (NAD 83): 43°50′37″ N, 069°36′23″ W. 43°50′37″ N, 069°36′59″ W. 43°50′16″ N, 069°36′46″ W. 43°50′22″ N, 069°36′21″ W. 8.2 Westerlund's Landing Party Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Portside Marina • Date: A one day event in August.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 pm to 10:30 pm • Location: In the vicinity of Westerlund's Landing in South Gardiner, Maine in approximate position: 44°10′19″ N, 069°45′24″ W (NAD 83). 8.3 Y-Tri Triathlon • Event Type: Swim Event • Sponsor: Plattsburgh YMCA • Date: A one day event in August.* • Time (Approximate): 9:00 am to 10:00 am • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Treadwell Bay on Lake Champlain in the vicinity of Point Au Roche State Park, Plattsburgh, New York within the following points (NAD 83): 44°46′30″ N, 073°23′26″ W. 44°46′17″ N, 073°23′26″ W. 44°46′17″ N, 073°23′46″ W. 44°46′29″ N, 073°23′46″ W. 8.4 York Beach Fire Department Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: York Beach Fire Department • Date: A one day event in August.* • Time (Approximate): 8:30 pm to 11:30 pm • Location: In the vicinity of Short Sand Cove in York, Maine in approximate position: 43°10′27″ N, 070°36′25″ W (NAD 83). 8.5 Rockland Breakwater Swim • Event Type: Swim Event • Sponsor: Pen-Bay Masters • Date: A one day event in August.* • Time (Approximate): 7:30 am to 1:30 pm • Location: The regulated area includes all waters of Rockland Harbor, Maine in the vicinity of Jameson Point within the following points (NAD 83): 44°06′16″ N, 069°04′39″ W. 44°06′13″ N, 069°04′36″ W. 44°06′12″ N, 069°04′43″ W. 44°06′17″ N, 069°04′44″ W. 44°06′18″ N, 069°04′40″ W. 8.6 Tri for Preservation • Event Type: Swim Event • Sponsor: Tri-Maine Productions • Date: A one day event in August.* • Time (Approximate): 7:30 am to 9:00 am • Location: In the vicinity of Crescent Beach State Park in Cape Elizabeth, Maine in approximate position: 43°33′46″ N, 070°13′48″ W. 43°33′41″ N, 070°13′46″ W. 43°33′44″ N, 070°13′40″ W. 43°33′47″ N, 070°13′46″ W. 8.7 North Hero Air Show • Event Type: Air Show • Sponsor: North Hero Fire Department • Date: A one day event in August.* • Time (Approximate): 10:00 am to 5:00 pm • Location: In the vicinity of Shore Acres Dock, North Hero, Vermont in approximate position: 44°48′24″ N, 073°17′02″ W. 44°48′22″ N, 073°16′46″ W. 44°47′53″ N, 073°16′54″ W, 44°47′54″ N, 073°17′09″ W. 8.8 Islesboro Crossing Swim • Event Type: Swim Event • Sponsor: Lifeflight Foundation • Date: A one day event in August.* • Time: (Approximate): 6:00 am to 11:00 am • Location: West Penobscot Bay from Ducktrap Beach, Lincolnville, ME to Grindel Point, Islesboro, ME, in approximate position: 44°17′44″ N, 069°00′11″ W. 44°16′58″ N, 068°56′35″ W. 9.0 SEPTEMBER 9.1 Windjammer Weekend Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Town of Camden, Maine • Date: A one night event in September.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 pm to 9:30 pm • Location: From a barge in the vicinity of Northeast Point, Camden Harbor, Maine in approximate position: 44°12′10″ N, 069°03′11″ W (NAD 83). 9.2 Eastport Pirate Festival Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Eastport Pirate Festival • Date: A one night event in September.* • Time (Approximate): 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm • Location: From the Waterfront Public Pier in Eastport, Maine in approximate position: 44°54′17″ N, 066°58′58″ W (NAD 83). 9.3 The Lobsterman Triathlon • Event Type: Swim Event • Sponsor: Tri-Maine Productions • Date: A one day event in September.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 am to 11:00 am • Location: The regulated area includes all waters in the vicinity of Winslow Park in South Freeport, Maine within the following points (NAD 83): 43°47′59″ N, 070°06′56″ W. 43°47′44″ N, 070°06′56″ W. 43°47′44″ N, 070°07′27″ W. 43°47′57″ N, 070°07′27″ W. 9.4 Eliot Festival Day Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display • Sponsor: Eliot Festival Day Committee • Date: A one night event in September.* • Time (Approximate): 8:00 pm to 10:30 pm • Location: In the vicinity of Eliot Town Boat Launch, Eliot, Maine in approximate position: 43°08′56″ N, 070°49′52″ W (NAD 83). 9.5 Lake Champlain Swimming Race • Event Type: Swim Event • Sponsor: Christopher Lizzaraque • Date: A one day event in September • Time (Approximate): 9:00 am to 3 pm • Location: Essex Beggs Point Park, Essex, NY, to Charlotte Beach, Charlotte, VT. 44°18′32″ N, 073°20′52″ W. 44°20′03″ N, 073°16′53″ W. * Date subject to change. Exact date will be posted in Notice of Enforcement and Local Notice to Mariners.
    Dated: January 29, 2015. B. S. Gilda, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Northern New England.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06609 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Part 25 [FAR Case 2015-001; Docket No. 2015-0001; Sequence No. 1] RIN 9000-AM88 Federal Acquisition Regulation; List of Domestically Nonavailable Articles AGENCIES:

    Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD, GSA, and NASA are considering amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to update the list of domestically nonavailable articles under the Buy American Act. DoD, GSA, and NASA are seeking information that will assist in identifying domestic capabilities and for evaluating whether some articles on the list of domestically nonavailable articles are now mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of a satisfactory quality.

    DATES:

    Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat at one of the addressees shown below on or before May 26, 2015 to be considered in the formulation of a proposed rule.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments in response to FAR Case 2015-001 by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for “FAR Case 2015-001”. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “FAR Case 2015-001”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Comment Now” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “FAR Case 2015-001” on your attached document.

    Fax: 202-501-4067.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), ATTN: Ms. Flowers, 1800 F Street NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405-0001.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite FAR Case 2015-001 in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Cecelia L. Davis, Procurement Analyst, at 202-219-0202, for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAR Case 2015-001.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    A. The Buy American statute (41 U.S.C. chapter 83) generally requires that only domestically mined, produced, or manufactured articles be procured for public use in the United States. The Buy American statute provides an exception for articles not mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of a satisfactory quality. FAR 25.103(b)(1) provides a determination that articles listed at FAR 25.104(a) meet the conditions of this exception. This determination does not necessarily mean that there is no domestic source for the listed items, but that domestic sources can only meet 50 percent or less of total U.S. Government and nongovernment demand.

    The established list of articles identified in FAR 25.104(a) is a comprehensive and wide-ranging mix of natural resources, compounds, materials, and other items of supply. Although some articles on the list have no known domestic production sources (e.g., vanilla beans), many of the articles are known to have some domestic production sources, but those sources have been determined in the past to be inadequate to meet U.S. demand. Examples of such articles range from goat and kidskins (negligible domestic production), to crude iodine (5 percent of U.S. Government and nongovernment demand), to bismuth (not in excess of 50 percent of U.S. Government and nongovernment demand).

    The list is reviewed every five years, as required by FAR 25.104(b). DoD, GSA, and NASA last published in the Federal Register a request for public comment on the list on August 7, 2009 (74 FR 39597).

    The Councils are seeking information to determine whether some articles should be removed from the list because they are now mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of a satisfactory quality. Specific information with regard to domestic production capacity in relation to U.S. Government and nongovernment demand and the quality of domestically produced items would be most helpful in determining whether articles should remain on or be removed from the list. A sources-sought notice will be published in FedBizOpps in an effort to increase the awareness of this request and to receive greater responses from interested parties on the nonavailable articles listing.

    B. The current domestically nonavailable listing at FAR 25.104 is as follow:

    • Acetylene, black.

    • Agar, bulk.

    • Anise.

    • Antimony, as metal or oxide.

    • Asbestos, amosite, chrysotile, and crocidolite.

    • Bamboo shoots.

    • Bananas.

    • Bauxite.

    • Beef, corned, canned.

    • Beef extract.

    • Bephenium hydroxynapthoate.

    • Bismuth.

    • Books, trade, text, technical, or scientific; newspapers; pamphlets; magazines; periodicals; printed briefs and films; not printed in the United States and for which domestic editions are not available.

    • Brazil nuts, unroasted.

    • Cadmium, ores and flue dust.

    • Calcium cyanamide.

    • Capers.

    • Cashew nuts.

    • Castor beans and castor oil.

    • Chalk, English.

    • Chestnuts.

    • Chicle.

    • Chrome ore or chromite.

    • Cinchona bark.

    • Cobalt, in cathodes, rondelles, or other primary ore and metal forms.

    • Cocoa beans.

    • Coconut and coconut meat, unsweetened, in shredded, desiccated, or similarly prepared form.

    • Coffee, raw or green bean.

    • Colchicine alkaloid, raw.

    • Copra.

    • Cork, wood or bark and waste.

    • Cover glass, microscope slide.

    • Crane rail (85-pound per foot).

    • Cryolite, natural.

    • Dammar gum.

    • Diamonds, industrial, stones and abrasives.

    • Emetine, bulk.

    • Ergot, crude.

    • Erythrityl tetranitrate.

    • Fair linen, altar.

    • Fibers of the following types: abaca, abace, agave, coir, flax, jute, jute burlaps, palmyra, and sisal.

    • Goat and kidskins.

    • Goat hair canvas.

    • Grapefruit sections, canned.

    • Graphite, natural, crystalline, crucible grade.

    • Hand file sets (Swiss pattern).

    • Handsewing needles.

    • Hemp yarn.

    • Hog bristles for brushes.

    • Hyoscine, bulk.

    • Ipecac, root.

    • Iodine, crude.

    • Kaurigum.

    • Lac.

    • Leather, sheepskin, hair type.

    • Lavender oil.

    • Manganese.

    • Menthol, natural bulk.

    • Mica.

    • Microprocessor chips (brought onto a Government construction site as separate units for incorporation into building systems during construction or repair and alteration of real property).

    • Modacrylic fiber.

    • Nickel, primary, in ingots, pigs, shots, cathodes, or similar forms; nickel oxide and nickel salts.

    • Nitroguanidine (also known as picrite).

    • Nux vomica, crude.

    • Oiticica oil.

    • Olive oil.

    • Olives (green), pitted or unpitted, or stuffed, in bulk.

    • Opium, crude.

    • Oranges, mandarin, canned.

    • Petroleum, crude oil, unfinished oils, and finished products.

    • Pine needle oil.

    • Pineapple, canned.

    • Platinum and related group metals, refined, as sponge, powder, ingots, or cast bars.

    • Pyrethrum flowers.

    • Quartz crystals.

    • Quebracho.

    • Quinidine.

    • Quinine.

    • Rabbit fur felt.

    • Radium salts, source and special nuclear materials.

    • Rosettes.

    • Rubber, crude and latex.

    • Rutile.

    • Santonin, crude.

    • Secretin.

    • Shellac.

    • Silk, raw and unmanufactured.

    • Spare and replacement parts for equipment of foreign manufacture, and for which domestic parts are not available.

    • Spices and herbs, in bulk.

    • Sugars, raw.

    • Swords and scabbards.

    • Talc, block, steatite.

    • Tantalum.

    • Tapioca flour and cassava.

    • Tartar, crude; tartaric acid and cream of tartar in bulk.

    • Tea in bulk.

    • Thread, metallic (gold).

    • Thyme oil.

    • Tin in bars, blocks, and pigs.

    • Triprolidine hydrochloride.

    • Tungsten.

    • Vanilla beans.

    • Venom, cobra.

    • Water chestnuts.

    • Wax, carnauba.

    • Wire glass.

    • Woods; logs, veneer, and lumber of the following species: Alaskan yellow cedar, angelique, balsa, ekki, greenheart, lignum vitae, mahogany, and teak.

    • Yarn, 50 Denier rayon.

    • Yeast, active dry and instant active dry.

    B. Executive Order 12866 and 13563

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

    List of Subject in 48 CFR Part 25

    Government procurement.

    Dated: March 19, 2015. William Clark, Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06735 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097: FXES11130900000C2-156-FF09E32000] RIN 1018-AZ74 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To Amend the Listing of the Southern Selkirk Mountains Population of Woodland Caribou AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on our May 8, 2014, proposed rule to amend the listing of the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) to the Southern Mountain caribou distinct population segment (DPS). The southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou is currently listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). On May 8, 2014, we proposed to list the Southern Mountain caribou DPS as threatened under the Act. This reopening of comment period will provide all interested parties with an opportunity to review additional scientific information and provide comment on the status of the Southern Mountain caribou DPS. Information previously submitted need not be resubmitted as it has already been incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in the final listing determination.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the proposed rule published May 8, 2014, at 79 FR 26504, is reopened. We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before April 23, 2015. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. Any comments that we receive after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this action.

    ADDRESSES:

    Document availability: You may obtain a copy of the proposed rule and associated documents on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097, or by contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Comment submission: You may submit written information by one of the following methods:

    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click the Search button. In the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the box next to “Proposed Rule” to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!” Please ensure that you have found the correct rulemaking before submitting your comment.

    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

    We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments received on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Information Requested section, below, for more information).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Carrier, State Supervisor, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise, ID (telephone 208-378-5243; facsimile 208-378-5262). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On May 8, 2014, we published in the Federal Register (79 FR 26504) a document consisting of: (1) A 12-month finding on a petition to delist the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou); (2) a proposed rule to amend the current listing of this population by defining the Southern Mountain caribou DPS, which includes the currently listed southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, and to list that DPS as threatened under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and (3) a determination that the approximately 30,010 acres (12,145 hectares) designated as critical habitat on November 28, 2012 (77 FR 71042), for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou is applicable to the U.S. portion of the proposed Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. The May 8, 2014, proposed rule had a 60-day public comment period, ending July 7, 2014. On June 10, 2014, we extended the public comment period an additional 30 days, ending on August 6, 2014, and we announced the scheduling of two public informational sessions and hearings, which were held on June 25, 2014, in Sandpoint, Idaho, and on June 26, 2014, in Bonners Ferry, Idaho (79 FR 33169).

    Subsequent to the closing of the public comment period on August 6, 2014, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) finalized their assessment of the biological status of the Southern Mountain caribou population, changing it from threatened to endangered. In August 2014, COSEWIC, in accordance with Canada's federal Species At Risk Act (SARA), submitted their assessment of endangered biological status to the Canadian federal Environment Minister for consideration of changing the legal status of the Southern Mountain caribou in Canada under SARA to endangered. The recommended change in the legal status under SARA is pending review and decision by the federal Environment Minister. Although we were aware that COSEWIC's assessment was underway and we received some of the preliminary information contained in their assessment, we were not able to incorporate the information into our proposed rule (79 FR 26504, May 8, 2014), because the assessment was not yet finalized by COSEWIC. The assessment is now available from COSEWIC for public review (http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/document/default_e.cfm?documentID=2575) and is also available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097. The 2014 COSEWIC assessment provides an updated synthesis and review of existing data and information about the species in Canada since the previous assessment by COSEWIC in 2002. The updated assessment includes an analysis of population size and trend and current threats to the population. Additionally, the assessment considered two population viability analyses, which are also available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097. This assessment, along with the population viability analyses, will be important sources of information for our status review and final listing determination for the Southern Mountain caribou DPS.

    Additionally, peer review of the proposed amended listing was conducted, and the report is available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097.

    Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from the proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available, and be as accurate and complete as possible. Therefore, we are again seeking written comments and information from other concerned Federal and State agencies, the scientific community, or any other interested party during this reopened comment period on our proposed rule that published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2014 (79 FR 26504). We are particularly interested in comments and information regarding the current status and population trends of the local populations that comprise the proposed Southern Mountain caribou DPS. This information will be used to determine the status of the DPS as either not warranted for listing, threatened, or endangered.

    If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (79 FR 26504) during the initial comment period from May 8, 2014, to July 6, 2014, or the extended comment period (79 FR 33169) from July 7, 2014, to August 6, 2014, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record as part of the original comment period, and we will fully consider them in our final determination.

    Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

    You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov. Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.

    If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: March 11, 2015. Robert Dreher, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06640 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    80 56 Tuesday, March 24, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0014] Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Hawaiian and Territorial Fruits and Vegetables Regulations AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the interstate movement of fruits and vegetables from Hawaii and the territories.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0014.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0014, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0014 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the regulations for the interstate movement of fruits and vegetables from Hawaii and the territories, contact Mr. David Lamb, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, RPM, PHP, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2159. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Hawaiian and Territorial Fruits and Vegetables Regulations.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0346.

    Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. This authority has been delegated to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which administers regulations to implement the PPA.

    Under the regulations in “Subpart—Regulated Articles From Hawaii and the Territories” (7 CFR 318.13-1 through 318.13-26), APHIS prohibits or restricts the interstate movement of fruits and vegetables into the continental United States from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to prevent plant pests and noxious weeds from being introduced into and spread within the continental United States.

    The regulations contain requirements for a performance-based process for approving the interstate movement of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely imported subject to one or more designated phytosanitary measures and for acknowledging pest-free areas. These requirements involve information collection activities, including limited permits, inspections to issue limited permits, inspections of production areas, transit permits, compliance agreements, inspection and certification, labeling for fruits and vegetables produced in pest free areas, written requests for facility approvals, trapping and surveillance, and recordkeeping. In addition, the activities of packaging, marking, identification, and certification of sweet potatoes from Hawaii are also included.

    This notice includes a description of the information collection requirements currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for OMB control numbers 0579-0198 and 0579-0281. Therefore, we will consolidate them into one collection (0579-0346). In addition, we have also added recordkeeping to this collection. As a result of consolidating 0579-0198 and 0579-0281 under 0579-0346, and upon approval of this collection by OMB, APHIS will retire numbers 0579-0198 and 0579-0281.

    We are asking OMB to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of Burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.47 hours per response.

    Respondents: Wholesalers and producers of fruits and vegetables; growers, shippers, and exporters in Hawaii, U.S. Territories, and State plant regulatory officials; and irradiation facility personnel.

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 302.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 81.5.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses: 24,626.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 11,749 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of March 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06725 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2015-0009] Retail Exemptions Adjusted Dollar Limitations AGENCY:

    Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing the dollar limitations on the amount of meat and meat food products, poultry, and poultry products that a retail store can sell to hotels, restaurants, and similar institutions without disqualifying itself for exemption from Federal inspection requirements. In accordance with FSIS's regulations, for calendar year 2015, the dollar limitation for meat and meat food products is being increased from $70,400 to $76,900 and for poultry products from $57,100 to $58,200. FSIS is changing the dollar limitations from calendar year 2014 to reflect price changes for these products, as evidenced by the Consumer Price Index.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 23, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gina Kouba, Issuances Staff, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 6067, South Building, Washington, DC 20250; (202) 690-6510.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) provide a comprehensive statutory framework to ensure that meat, meat food products, poultry, and poultry products prepared for commerce are wholesome, not adulterated, and properly labeled and packaged. Statutory provisions requiring inspection of the preparation or processing of meat, meat food, poultry, and poultry products do not apply to operations of types traditionally and usually conducted at retail stores and restaurants when those operations are conducted at any retail store or restaurant or similar retail-type establishment for sale in normal retail quantities (21 U.S.C. 661(c)(2) and 454(c)(2)). FSIS's regulations (9 CFR 303.1(d) and 381.10(d)) elaborate on the conditions under which inspection requirements do not apply to retail operations involving the preparation of meat and meat food, and processing of poultry and poultry products.

    Sales to Hotels, Restaurants, and Similar Institutions

    Under these regulations, sales to hotels, restaurants, and similar institutions (other than household consumers) disqualify a retail store from exemption if the product sales exceed either of two maximum limits: 25 percent of the dollar value of total product sales or the calendar year dollar limitation set by the Administrator. The dollar limitation is adjusted automatically during the first quarter of the year if the Consumer Price Index (CPI), published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows an increase or decrease of more than $500 in the price of the same volume of product for the previous year. FSIS publishes a notice of the adjusted dollar limitations in the Federal Register. (See 9 CFR 303.1(d)(2)(iii)(b) and 381.10(d)(2)(iii)(b).)

    The CPI for 2014 reveals an annual average price increase for meat and meat food products at 9.24 percent and for poultry products at 1.97 percent. When rounded to the nearest $100, the dollar limitation for meat and meat food products increased by $6,500 and the dollar limitation for poultry products increased by $1,100. Because the dollar limitation of meat and meat food products and poultry products increased by more than $500, FSIS is increasing the dollar limitation on sales to hotels, restaurants, and similar institutions to $76,900 for meat and meat food products and to $58,200 for poultry products for calendar year 2015, in accordance with 9 CFR 303.1(d)(2)(iii)(b) and 381.10(d)(2)(iii)(b).

    Additional Public Notification

    FSIS Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

    FSIS will also make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to constituents and stakeholders. The Update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade groups, consumer interest groups, health professionals, and other individuals who have asked to be included. The Update is also available on the FSIS Web page. In addition, FSIS offers an electronic mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

    USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

    No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

    How to File a Complaint of Discrimination

    To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

    Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

    Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410.

    Fax: (202) 690-7442.

    Email: [email protected]

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    Done, at Washington, DC on: March 16, 2015. Alfred V. Almanza, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06641 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Motorized Travel Management, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Washington: Cancellation AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Cancellation notice.

    SUMMARY:

    On March 24, 2009, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Motorized Travel Management Project on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest was published in the Federal Register (74 FR 12304-12306). The Forest Service has decided to cancel the preparation of this EIS. The NOI is hereby rescinded.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions may be addressed to Jennifer Zbyszewski, Recreation Wilderness & Facilities Program Manager, Methow Valley Ranger District, 24 W. Chewuch Road, Winthrop, Washington 98862 (phone: 503-996-4021).

    Dated: March 13, 2015. Jason Kuiken, Deputy Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06304 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (Board) will meet in Rapid City, South Dakota. The Board is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. App. II), the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1612), and the Federal Public Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (Pub. L. 108-447). Additional information concerning the Board, including the meeting summary/minutes, can be found by visiting the Board's Web site at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/blackhills/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 1:00 p.m.

    All meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Mystic Ranger District, 8221 South Highway 16, Rapid City, South Dakota. Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses, when provided, are placed in the record and available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Jacobson, Committee Coordinator, by phone at 605-673-9216, or by email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to provide:

    (1) Northern Long Eared Bat Listing Update; and

    (2) FY 15-19 Vegetation Management Strategy (Follow-up); and

    (3) Bearlodge Project Presentation Update; and

    (4) 2015 Fire Season Forecast; and

    (5) 2015 Fire Season Preparedness.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing by April 6, 2015 to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Board may file written statements with the Board's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Scott Jacobson, Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office, 1019 North Fifth Street, Custer, South Dakota 57730; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 605-673-9208.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: March 17, 2015. Craig Bobzien, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06671 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0019] Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Peppers From Certain Central American Countries AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations for the importation of peppers from certain Central American countries.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0019.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0019, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0019 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the importation of peppers from certain Central American countries, contact Mr. Juan (Tony) Roman, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, RCC, RPM, PHP, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 156, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2242. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Importation of Peppers From Certain Central American Countries.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0274.

    Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests, including fruit flies, into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. Regulations authorized by the PPA concerning the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world are contained in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-71).

    In accordance with § 319.56-40, peppers from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama are subject to certain conditions before entering the United States to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. The regulations require the use of information collection activities, including inspections by national plant protection organization (NPPO) officials of the country of export; a bilateral workplan; production site registration; fruit fly trapping, monitoring, quality control program, and recordkeeping; box labeling; and a phytosanitary certificate.

    When comparing the regulations to the information collection activities that were previously approved, we found that production site registration and the quality control program were omitted from the previous collection. By adding these activities to this information collection, the estimated annual number of responses per respondent has increased from 3,226.65 to 21,947. We also found that we overestimated the burden hours for recordkeeping. In addition, the estimated annual number of respondents has decreased from 245 to 36. As a result of these factors, the estimated total annual burden on respondents decreased from 2,999 hours to 1,929 hours.

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.00244 hours per response.

    Respondents: Importers, NPPOs, growers, and shippers of peppers in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 36.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 21,947.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 790,092.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 1,929 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of March 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06721 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0021] Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Fruits and Vegetables AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0021.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0021, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0021 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the regulations for the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States, contact Mr. Juan (Tony) Román, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, RCC, RPM, PHP, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 156, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2242. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Importation of Fruits and Vegetables.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0264.

    Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. This authority has been delegated to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which administers regulations to implement the PPA.

    The regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-71) allow a number of fruits and vegetables into the United States, under specified conditions, from certain parts of the world while continuing to protect against the introduction of pests into the United States. Under these regulations, the importation of a variety of fruits and vegetables from Belgium, Central America, China, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Jerusalem, the Netherlands, South America, and Trinidad and Tobago requires the use of phytosanitary certificates.

    In our previous extension request for this collection, we included the information collection activities of trapping records and compliance agreements, which were specific to untreated citrus from Mexico. However, we have removed the collection activities for untreated citrus from Mexico from this collection because they are now listed under a different Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. As a result, the overall burden numbers for this collection have decreased.

    We are asking OMB to approve our use of this information collection activity, as described, for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of Burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.25 hours per response.

    Respondents: National plant protection organization officials of countries exporting to the United States.

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 12.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 39.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses: 468.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 117 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of March 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06723 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Agricultural Library Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Collect Information AGENCY:

    National Agricultural Library, Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and Request for Comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, this notice announces the National Agricultural Library's (NAL) intent to request an extension of currently approved information collection form related to the Animal Welfare Information Center's (AWIC) workshop, Meeting the Information Requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. This workshop registration form requests the following information from participants: Contact information, affiliation, and database searching experience. Participants include principal investigators, members of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees, animal care technicians, facility managers, veterinarians, and administrators of animal use programs.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice much be received by May 26, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Address all comments concerning this notice to Sandra Ball, Information Technology Specialist, USDA, ARS, NAL Animal Welfare Information Center, 10301 Baltimore Avenue, Room #118G, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-2351. Submit electronic comments to: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sandra Ball, Information Technology Specialist. Phone: 301 504 6212 or Fax: 301 504 5181.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Animal Welfare Act Workshop Registration.

    OMB Number: 0518-033.

    Expiration Date:

    Type of Request: To extend currently approved data collection form.

    Abstract: This Web-based form collects information to register respondents in the workshop, Meeting the Information Requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. Information collected includes the following: Preference of workshop date, name, title/position, organization name, mailing address, phone number, and email address. Five questions are asked regarding: Database searching experience, membership on an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, position as principal investigator, and goals for attending the workshop.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 minutes per response.

    Respondents: Principal investigators, members of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees, animal care personnel, veterinarians, information providers, and administrators of animal use programs.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 200 per year.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 16.6 hours.

    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 the assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technology. Comments should be sent to the address in the preamble. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: March 11, 2015. Simon Y. Liu, Associate Administrator, Agriculture Research Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06608 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service [Docket No. NRCS-2015-0002] Notice of Meeting of the Agricultural Air Quality Task Force AGENCY:

    Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Air Quality Task Force (AAQTF) will meet for discussions on critical air quality issues relating to agriculture. Special emphasis will be placed on obtaining a greater understanding about the relationship between agricultural production and air quality. The meeting is open to the public, and a draft agenda is included in this notice.

    DATES:

    The meeting will convene at 8:00 a.m. EDT on Wednesday and Thursday April 22-23, 2015. A public comment period will be held on the morning of April 23. The meeting will end at approximately noon on April 23.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in Room 156/157 of the Plant Biotechnology building at the University of Tennessee, 2505 E. J. Chapman Drive, Knoxville, TN 37996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions and comments should be directed to Dr. Greg Johnson, Designated Federal Official, USDA, NRCS, 1201 Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1000, Portland Oregon 97232; telephone: (503) 273-2424; fax: (503) 273-2401; or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. Additional information concerning AAQTF, including any revised agendas for the April 22-23, 2015 meeting that occurs after this Federal Register Notice is published, may be found at: www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/air/taskforce.

    Draft Agenda Meeting of the AAQTF April 22-23, 2015 Knoxville, Tennessee A. Welcome remarks and introductions B. An overview of Tennessee agriculture C. USDA, NRCS, and Tennessee agriculture and forestry D. Update on agricultural air quality regulatory issues at the Environmental Protection Agency E. AAQTF Subcommittee reports F. Agriculture, forestry, and sustainability issues G. Great Smoky Mountains National Park plant-ozone issues H. Updates from USDA agencies (Forest Service, NRCS, NIFA, and ARS) I. Selected agricultural air quality research presentations J. Public Input (Individual presentations limited to 5 minutes)

    Please note that the timing of events in the agenda is subject to change to accommodate changing schedules of expected speakers and or extended discussions.

    Procedural

    This meeting is open to the public. On April 23, 2015, the public will have an opportunity to provide up to 5 minutes of input to the AAQTF.

    Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, please contact Greg Johnson (contact information listed above). USDA prohibits discrimination in its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, sexual orientation, or disability. Additionally, discrimination on the basis of political beliefs and marital or family status is also prohibited by statutes enforced by USDA. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact the USDA's Target Center at (202) 720-2000 (voice and TDD).

    Signed this 18th day of March 2015, in Washington, DC Jason A. Weller, Chief.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06617 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-72-2014] Approval of Subzone Status, The Coleman Company, Inc., Sauk Rapids, Minnesota

    On June 9, 2014, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Greater Metropolitan Area Foreign Trade Zone Commission, grantee of FTZ 119, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 119 on behalf of The Coleman Company, Inc., in Sauk Rapids, Minnesota.

    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (79 FR 33903-33904, 6-13-2014). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval.

    Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 119I is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 119's 2,000-acre activation limit.

    Dated: March 18, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06748 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-843] Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain lined paper products (CLPP) from India.1 The period of review (POR) is September 1, 2013, through August 31, 2014, and the Department initiated the review with respect to seven companies.2 We are rescinding the review with respect to three companies for which review requests were timely withdrawn.3

    1See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, Indonesia and the People's Republic of China; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper Products from India and Indonesia, 71 FR 56949 (September 28, 2006) (CLPP Order).

    2 The seven companies are: Kokuyo Riddhi Paper Products Private Limited (Kokuyo Riddhi), Marisa International (Marisa), Navneet Publications (India) Ltd./Navneet Education Limited (Navneet), Pioneer Stationery Private Limited (Pioneer), Riddhi Enterprises, SAB International (SAB), and Super Impex (AKA M/S Super Impex) (Super Impex).

    3 The three companies include: Marisa, Pioneer, and Super Impex. Although Kokuyo Riddhi and Navneet filed timely withdrawal requests, petitioners' withdrawal request did not include a withdrawal of Kokuyo Riddhi and Navneet, companies for which the petitioners requested a review. Therefore, Kokuyo Riddhi and Navneet remain subject to the instant review.

    DATES:

    Effective March 24, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cindy Robinson or George McMahon, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3797 or (202) 482-1167, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On September 2, 2014, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain lined paper from India.4 Pursuant to requests from interested parties, the Department published in the Federal Register the notice of initiation 5 of this antidumping duty administrative review with respect seven companies for the period September 1, 2013, through August 31, 2014.

    4See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 79 FR 51958 (September 2, 2014).

    5See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 79 FR 64565 (October 30, 2014).

    Rescission of Review, in Part

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The instant review was initiated on October 30, 2014. Accordingly, the deadline to timely file withdrawal of review requests was January 28, 2015.

    Petitioners submitted requests for review with respect to the following seven companies: Kokuyo Riddhi, Marisa, Navneet, Pioneer, Riddhi Enterprises, SAB, and Super Impex.6 On December 12, 2014, Navneet timely withdrew its request for administrative review. On January 28, 2015, the petitioners timely withdrew their request for administrative review of Marisa, Pioneer, and Super Impex. On January 28, 2015, Kokuyo Riddhi withdrew its request for administrative review. Thus, the aforementioned withdrawal requests are timely because they were filed within the 90-day deadline.

    6See Petitioners' letter dated September 30, 2014.

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) and consistent with our practice,7 we are rescinding this review with respect to Marisa, Pioneer, and Super Impex. The instant review will continue with respect to Kokuyo Riddhi, Navneet, Riddhi Enterprises, and SAB.8

    7See, e.g., Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 49170 (August 20, 2008); Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 21781 (May 11, 2009).

    8 Kokuyo Riddhi and Navneet remain in the instant review because the petitioners' withdrawal request did not include these two particular companies.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, i.e., Marisa, Pioneer, and Super Impex, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period September 1, 2013, through August 31, 2014, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).

    The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent increase in the amount of antidumping duties assessed.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: March 18, 2015. Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06752 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD816 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Exempted Fishing Permit AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces the receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit (EFP) from the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MS DMR). If granted, the EFP would authorize the applicant to collect red drum in Federal waters using state of MS-licensed charter and headboat vessels (for-hire vessels). The purpose of this study is to collect population data specific to the genetics, age and growth, reproduction, and food habits of adult red drum in Federal waters where harvest is currently prohibited. The data would then be used to support future stock assessment information for red drum.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received no later than April 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the application by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected]. Include in the subject line of the email comment the following document identifier: “MS Red Drum_EFP”.

    Mail: Steve Branstetter, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

    The application and related documents are available for review upon written request to any of the above addresses.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Branstetter, 727-824-5305; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The EFP is requested under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and regulations at 50 CFR 600.745(b) concerning exempted fishing.

    The harvest and possession of red drum in the Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) has been prohibited since 1988 (53 FR 24662, June 29, 1988). The harvest and possession prohibition was implemented to protect the Gulf red drum stock from overfishing. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) is currently discussing whether to modify or remove this harvest and possession prohibition, but data regarding the adult red drum in Gulf Federal waters is limited. The existing population data is not representative of the Gulf red drum population as a whole as it mainly consists of younger and smaller red drum samples obtained from state waters where harvest is permitted.

    The proposed collection for scientific research involves activities that would be prohibited by regulations at 50 CFR part 622, as they pertain to red drum managed by the Council. Specifically, the EFP requests exemption from Federal regulations at § 622.92 (Prohibited species) that prohibit the harvest and possession of red drum in Gulf Federal waters.

    The applicant requests authorization through the EFP to allow state of MS-licensed for-hire vessels to have a recreational bag and possession limit of one red drum per person per trip from Federal waters. There would be no size limits applicable for the red drum collected through this EFP. Additionally, the red drum bag and possession limits for captain and crew of any for-hire vessel participating in this study would be zero.

    Beginning in the fall of 2015, the applicant requests to collect a maximum of 30,000 lb (13,608 kg) of red drum during a 2-year period. The 30,000 lb (13,608 kg) is equivalent to approximately 2,000 red drum or about 1,000 red drum per each year of the study. According to MS DMR, as many as 70 for-hire vessels would be a part of the study. For any vessel trip that plans to harvest red drum, the vessel would be required to hail-in and hail-out with a representative of MS DMR using an existing MS DMR electronic reporting format. A representative of MS DMR would then meet the vessel that has red drum onboard harvested from Federal waters to collect sample information. The applicant would monitor the amount of red drum collected to ensure that the 30,000 lb (13,608 kg) sample limit is not exceeded. After biological sampling by MS DMR is completed for each red drum landed by participating for-hire vessels, recreational fishers from the for-hire vessel would be allowed to retain the red drum as recreational harvest. All red drum collected through this study would be harvested during regular for-hire trips using hook-and-line gear in Gulf Federal waters. A MS-licensed for-hire vessel would not be permitted to fish for or possess either Gulf reef fish species or coastal migratory pelagic species unless that vessel also had a Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for the applicable species. It is not anticipated that the study will increase any overall fishing effort in the Gulf.

    Samples to be collected by the applicant include biological material for red drum population genetics, age and growth, reproduction, and food habits analyses of adult red drum in Federal waters. Some specific information to be collected include using molecular techniques to identify possible meta-populations and genetic structure, stomach content analysis, tissue analysis, several length measurements, otolith sampling, and histology analysis.

    The research data are intended to provide better life history information to assist with any future red drum stock assessments and to assist the Council with future management decisions.

    NMFS finds this application warrants further consideration. Possible conditions the agency may impose on this permit, if it is indeed granted, include but are not limited to, a prohibition of conducting research within marine protected areas, marine sanctuaries, or special management zones, without additional authorization. A report on the research would be due at the end of the collection period, to be submitted to NMFS and reviewed by the Council.

    A final decision on issuance of the EFP will depend on NMFS' review of public comments received on the application, consultations with appropriate fishery management agencies of the affected states, the Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard, as well as a determination that it is consistent with all applicable laws.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 18, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06661 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-896] Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: March 24, 2015.

    SUMMARY:

    On November 24, 2014, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on magnesium metal from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) covering the period April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014.1 This review covers two PRC producer/exporters, Tianjin Magnesium International, Co., Ltd. (“TMI”) and Tianjin Magnesium Metal, Co., Ltd. (“TMM”). The Department gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results, but we received no comments. Hence, these final results are unchanged from the Preliminary Results, and we continue to find that TMI and TMM did not have reviewable entries during the period of review (“POR”).

    1See Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 79 FR 69834 (November 24, 2014) (“Preliminary Results”).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Terpstra or Erin Begnal, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3965 or (202) 482-1442, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On November 24, 2014, the Department published the Preliminary Results of the instant review.2 TMI and TMM submitted timely-filed certifications indicating that they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.3 In addition, in response to the Department's query, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) did not provide any evidence that contradicted TMI's and TMM's claims of no shipments.4 The Department received no comments from interested parties concerning the results of the CBP query. Therefore, based on TMI's and TMM's certification and our analysis of CBP information, we preliminarily determined that TMI did not have any reviewable entries during the POR.5 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. 6 We received no comments from interested parties.

    2Id.

    3See letter from TMI, “Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China; A-570-896; Certification of No Sales by Tianjin Magnesium International, Co., Ltd.,” dated June 25, 2014, at 1; and letter from TMM, “Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China; A-570-896; Certification of No Sales by Tianjin Magnesium Metal, Co., Ltd.,” dated July 21, 2014 at 1.

    4See Preliminary Results, 79 FR at 69834.

    5Id.

    6Id.

    The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).

    Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this antidumping duty order is magnesium metal from the PRC, which includes primary and secondary alloy magnesium metal, regardless of chemistry, raw material source, form, shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium. Primary magnesium is produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Secondary magnesium is produced by recycling magnesium-based scrap into magnesium metal. The magnesium covered by this order includes blends of primary and secondary magnesium.

    The subject merchandise includes the following alloy magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other shapes; magnesium ground, chipped, crushed, or machined into rasping, granules, turnings, chips, powder, briquettes, and other shapes; and products that contain 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, magnesium, by weight, and that have been entered into the United States as conforming to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy” 7 and are thus outside the scope of the existing antidumping orders on magnesium from the PRC (generally referred to as “alloy” magnesium).

    7 The meaning of this term is the same as that used by the American Society for Testing and Materials in its Annual Book for ASTM Standards: Volume 01.02 Aluminum and Magnesium Alloys.

    The scope of this order excludes: (1) All forms of pure magnesium, including chemical combinations of magnesium and other material(s) in which the pure magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by weight, that do not conform to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy” 8 ; (2) magnesium that is in liquid or molten form; and (3) mixtures containing 90 percent or less magnesium in granular or powder form by weight and one or more of certain non-magnesium granular materials to make magnesium-based reagent mixtures, including lime, calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, carbon, slag coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline syenite, feldspar, alumina (Al203), calcium aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons, graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, ferroalloys, dolomite lime, and colemanite.9

    8 The material is already covered by existing antidumping orders. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation and Ukraine; Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Pure Magnesium from the Russian Federation, 60 FR 25691 (May 12, 1995); and Antidumping Duty Order: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form from the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 57936 (November 19, 2001).

    9 This third exclusion for magnesium-based reagent mixtures is based on the exclusion for reagent mixtures in the 2000-2001 investigations of magnesium from China, Israel, and Russia. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 49345 (September 27, 2001); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From Israel, 66 FR 49349 (September 27, 2001); Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation, 66 FR 49347 (September 27, 2001). These mixtures are not magnesium alloys, because they are not combined in liquid form and cast into the same ingot.

    The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under items 8104.19.00, and 8104.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS items are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

    Final Determination of No Shipments

    As explained above, in the Preliminary Results, the Department found that TMI and TMM did not have reviewable entries during the POR.10 Also in the Preliminary Results, the Department stated that consistent with its refinement to its assessment practice in non-market economy (“NME”) cases, it is appropriate not to rescind the review in this circumstance but, rather, to complete the review with respect to TMI and TMM and to issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.11

    10See Preliminary Results, 79 FR at 69834-35.

    11See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) (“Assessment Practice Refinement”) and the “Assessment Rates” section, below.

    After issuing the Preliminary Results, the Department received no comments from interested parties, nor has it received any information that would cause it to revisit its preliminary results. Therefore, for these final results, the Department continues to find that TMI and TMM did not have any reviewable entries during the POR.

    Assessment Rates

    The Department determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.12 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

    12See 19 CFR 351.212(b).

    Additionally, consistent with the Department's refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases, because the Department determined that TMI and TMM had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, any suspended entries that entered under TMI's antidumping duty case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.13 As TMM's entries are subject to the PRC-wide rate, any suspended entries will also be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.

    13See Assessment Practice Refinement, 76 FR 65694.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice of final results of the administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For TMI, which claimed no shipments, the cash deposit rate will remain unchanged from the rate assigned to TMI in the most recently completed review of the company; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters who are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but who have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate (including TMM, which claimed no shipments, but has not been found to be separate from the PRC-wide entity), the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 141.49 percent; 14 and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    14See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 19928 (April 15, 2005).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    We are issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: March 18, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06727 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket No. 141015853-4853-01] RIN 0648-XD563 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the Baltic Sea as an Endangered or Threatened Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of 12-month Finding.

    SUMMARY:

    We, NMFS, announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list the harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the Baltic Sea as an endangered or threatened distinct population segment (DPS) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We conducted a DPS analysis based on our joint U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS DPS Policy. Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that the harbor porpoise population in the Baltic Sea is not a DPS because it does not meet the criterion for significance outlined by our DPS Policy. Thus, we find this population is not warranted for listing.

    DATES:

    This finding was made on March 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Information used to make this finding is available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The petition and a list of the references we used can also be found at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/petition81.htm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Heather Coll, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 427-8455.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On July 15, 2013, we received a petition from the WildEarth Guardians to list 81 marine species or subpopulations as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We found that the petitioned actions may be warranted for 24 species and 3 subpopulations, announced the initiation of status reviews, and solicited information from the public for each of the 24 species and 3 subpopulations (78 FR 63941, October 25, 2013; 78 FR 66675, November 6, 2013; 78 FR 69376, November 19, 2013; 79 FR 9880, February 21, 2014; and 79 FR 10104, February 24, 2014). We completed comprehensive status reviews under the ESA for six foreign marine species and evaluated whether one foreign marine subpopulation met our DPS Policy criteria in response to the petition (79 FR 74954; December 16, 2014).

    This notice addresses the finding for one of the petitioned subpopulations: a putative Baltic Sea harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) subpopulation (79 FR 9880; February 21, 2014). The remaining species and subpopulation will be addressed in subsequent findings.

    We are responsible for determining whether species are threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). To make this determination, we first consider whether a group of organisms constitutes a “species” under the ESA, then whether the status of the species qualifies it for listing as either threatened or endangered. Section 3 of the ESA defines a “species” as “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” On February 7, 1996, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; together, the Services) adopted a policy describing what constitutes a DPS of a taxonomic species or subspecies (the DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722). The DPS Policy identified two elements that must be considered when identifying a DPS: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) the significance of the population segment to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs. As stated in the joint DPS Policy, Congress expressed its expectation that the Services would exercise authority with regard to DPSs sparingly and only when the biological evidence indicates such action is warranted. Listing determinations under the ESA must be based on the best available scientific and commercial information.

    Under the DPS Policy, a population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions:

    (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.

    (2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.

    If a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of the above conditions, we will evaluate its biological and ecological significance. The significance consideration may include the following:

    (1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon,

    (2) Evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon,

    (3) Evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range, or

    (4) Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.

    Species Description

    The harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, is a widely distributed cetacean found in temperate and subarctic coastal and offshore waters of the northern hemisphere and is usually seen in groups of two to five animals (Reeves et al., 2002). Although it is sometimes found in offshore waters, it is primarily considered a coastal species limited to continental shelf waters (Perrin et al., 2002; Hammond et al., 2008), possibly due to feeding preference and reproduction. It is also commonly found in bays, estuaries, harbors, and fjords (Powell et al., 2002).

    Harbor porpoises are easy to identify because they are smaller than most other cetaceans in the northern hemisphere. Males can reach up to 1.57 m in length and 61 kg in weight, while females reach up to 1.68 m and 76 kg (Reeves et al., 2002). They reach maximum girth just ahead of the dorsal fin, which gives them a robust body and short back (Reeves et al., 2002). They are medium to dark gray with a white belly and throat, a short blunt beak, and a medium-sized triangular dorsal fin. Their maximum life span is thought to be 24 years (Reeves et al., 2002). Data from the Baltic Sea indicates that females are larger than males in all age classes (Benke et al., 1997).

    Despite their small size, harbor porpoises are highly mobile animals. Satellite tagging studies show that harbor porpoises have an average swim speed of 0.6-2.3 km/h, can swim distances of up to 58 km/day, and have large home ranges (Read and Westgate, 1997; Sveegaard et al., 2011). This movement likely has implications for reproduction, foraging behavior, bioenergetics, environmental preferences, and population structure.

    Sexual maturity is generally reached at about 3 to 4 years, with a large proportion of mature females producing a calf every year (Read and Hohn, 1995; Koschinski, 2002; Reeves et al., 2002). Gestation lasts 10—11 months (Reeves et al., 2002). Mean conception date is reported as 6 July ± 9.5 days in the Bay of Fundy and Gulf of Maine and 25 July ± 20.3 days in the Kattegat and Skagerrak seas in the Baltic region (Borjesson and Read, 2003). Timing of conception was found to be significantly earlier in the Baltic Sea (18 August ± 11.8 days) than in the North Sea, but did not differ between the Kattegat and Skagerrak (Borjesson and Read, 2003). The North Atlantic harbor porpoise sex ratio has been reported as biased toward males throughout life (Lockyer, 2003). The sex ratio found in Danish waters in the Baltic region is 55:45, male:female (Clausen and Andersen, 1988; Sorensen and Kinze, 1994).

    It is thought that shallow water areas are important for harbor porpoise calving, nursing, or breeding (Kinze, 1990; Hammond et al., 1995). Calving areas in the Baltic region have been identified inside the 20-meter depth contour in the northern part of the Little Belt, Great Belt, Sejro Bight, waters north of Fyn, archipelago south of Fyn, and Smalandsfarvandet (Kinze, 1990). The significantly higher proportion of calves off Sylt and Amrum in the North Sea indicates that these coastal waters are used as a preferred calving ground for North Sea harbor porpoises (Kremer et al., 1990; Sonntag et al., 1999). North Sea harbor porpoises have also been found in high densities during summer at the tip of Jylland in the northern part of the Danish North Sea, 30km from the Danish coast at Horns Rev, and also in the German Bight (Teilmann et al., 2008), suggesting possible calving areas or even foraging areas.

    Harbor porpoises' small size, high mobility, and relatively fast reproduction cycle require a great deal of energy (Read, 1999; Koopman et al., 2002; MacLeod et al., 2007). For this reason, they feed on high lipid content fishes (Perin et al., 2002), though preferred prey species can vary regionally based upon availability (Koschinski, 2002; Perrin et al., 2002; Hammond et al., 2008). Harbor porpoises are solitary feeders and do not cooperatively forage (Reeves et al., 2002). Herring, sprat, and cod have been reported as the most important schooling fish prey items in the Baltic Sea (Koschinski, 2002), and harbor porpoises in Polish Baltic waters have been reported to feed on herring, sprat, and gobies (Malinga et al., 1997). Harbor porpoises in the Baltic Sea feed opportunistically on certain species found in their local area (Koschinski, 2002), and this may be the explanation for significant differences in species preference when compared to harbor porpoises in other areas, such as the North Sea (Benke et al., 1998). Harbor porpoises in the Kattegat and Skagerrak seas are reported to feed on Atlantic herring as juveniles and Atlantic hagfish as adults (Boerjesson et al., 2003).

    Long-distance migrations of Baltic harbor porpoises were thought to occur in the past (Mohl-Hansen, 1954; Wolk, 1969; Andersen, 1982; Gaskin, 1984). This assumption of a massive seasonal migration has since been challenged in the literature (Kinze, 2008; Andersen and Clausen, 1993), and modern telemetry research in the Baltic region has shown there to be more of a seasonal net movement rather than complete seasonal migration (Read and Westgate, 1997; Teilmann et al., 2008; Sveegaard et al., 2011).

    Environmental conditions may drive some of their net movement. Decreasing access to food or air and ice entrapments could occur when the Baltic Sea almost completely freezes during harsh winters, causing reports of mass deaths of harbor porpoises (Teilmann and Lowry, 1996). There are severe ice conditions reported in the southeastern Baltic Sea, but they are not consistent (Seina and Palusuo, 1996). There have been several winters with almost complete ice coverage in the Baltic Sea, which would have forced harbor porpoises from the Baltic Sea into the Belt Sea (Teilmann and Lowry, 1996; Koslowski and Schmelzer, 2007).

    Environmental preferences for ideal foraging and reproduction conditions could also drive their movement. Telemetry studies of harbor porpoises in the Baltic region show that they concentrate in some areas (Read and Westgate, 1997; Teilmann et al., 2008; Sveegaard et al., 2011). Sveegaard et al. (2011) collected satellite telemetry data to identify key habitat use in the Baltic region by tagging harbor porpoises from a Skagerrak group (northern Kattegat, Skagerrak, North Sea) and an Inner Danish Waters group (southern Kattegat, Belts Seas, western Baltic Sea). They found that harbor porpoises in the region are not evenly distributed, and reported nine high density areas for the region, with clear seasonal movement for all animals tracked. Porpoises from the Inner Danish Waters group move south in winter, whereas porpoises from the Skagerrak group move west to the North Sea; during the spring and summer reproductive period, the Skagerrak group stays close to one particular area, while the Inner Danish Waters group spreads out over the entire range of their distribution. No difference was found in home range size in relation to sex for the Inner Danish Waters group, but males of the Skagerrak group had larger home ranges than the females. A more recent abundance study by Viquerat et al. (2014) confirmed that harbor porpoises in the Baltic region are not evenly distributed and reported them to concentrate in high density areas.

    There is also other evidence that harbor porpoises move across water bodies in the Baltic region. Stable isotope analysis of prey items from the Baltic and Kattegat/Skagerrak Seas has shown that harbor porpoises move between the Baltic and Kattegat/Skagerrak Seas, although the magnitude of these movements is not well known (Angerbjoern et al., 2006). An extensive review of sighting surveys and tagging has indicated extensive movement of animals within and between Inner Danish Waters and the Skagerrak/North Sea (Lockyer and Kinze, 2003).

    DPS Analysis

    The petitioner did not define the geographic boundaries of its petitioned Baltic Sea subpopulation. Therefore, we used the best available data from the region to determine whether any boundaries exist that could be used to define a DPS within the Baltic region. Here we review the best available information, including information on physical, physiological, ecological, and behavioral factors, to identify a Baltic Sea subpopulation and determine whether it is a DPS, as defined in our Policy.

    The harbor porpoise is comprised of three subspecies in the northern hemisphere, which are assumed to be reproductively segregated by ocean basin: The North Pacific (Phocoena phocoena vomerina, Gill, 1865), North Atlantic (P. phocoena phocoena, L., 1758), and Black Sea/Sea of Azov (P. phocoena relicta, Abel, 1905) (Gaskin, 1984; Rosel et al., 1995). Within the North Atlantic subspecies, some authors have classified the Eastern and Western Atlantic harbor porpoises as populations based on migration distance (Gaskin, 1984; IWC, Sub-Committee on Small Cetaceans, 1996). More recently, genetic studies also differentiate harbor porpoises from the Eastern and Western Atlantic (Rosel et al., 1999; Tolley et al., 2001); however, an analysis using mitochondrial DNA has shown that movement of harbor porpoises across the Atlantic does occur at a low level (Rosel et al., 1999). Harbor porpoises in the Western Atlantic exhibit higher genetic diversity than those in the Eastern Atlantic (Tolley et al., 1999). Finer-level genetic patterns of population structure remain to be resolved for the Eastern Atlantic population (Tolley et al., 2004).

    The coastal nature of harbor porpoises led to an assumption of depth-restricted movement and a widespread acceptance of the proposal of thirteen populations in the North Atlantic (Tolley et al., 1999) (Figure 1): (1) Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy; (2) Gulf of St. Lawrence; (3) Newfoundland and Labrador; (4) West Greenland; (5) Iceland; (6) Faroe Islands; (7) Norway and Barents Sea; (8) North Sea; (9) Kattegat and adjacent waters; (10) Baltic Sea; (11) Ireland and Western British Isles; (12) Iberia and Bay of Biscay; and (13) Northwest Africa (Gaskin, 1984; Yurick and Gaskin, 1987; IWC, Sub-Committee on Small Cetaceans, 1996; Rosel et al., 1999; Andersen, 2003). Regional genetic and other studies have attempted to detail a finer subpopulation structure in the Eastern and Western Atlantic and test the assumption of the above divisions.

    EN24MR15.000 Discreteness

    Available information to inform our analysis of “discreteness” consists of genetic studies, skull measurements, contaminant profiles, and tooth ultrastructure. We examined the best available information in each of these categories to determine whether there is a set of individuals in the Baltic region that is discrete from the rest of the taxon (Figure 2).

    EN24MR15.001 Genetic Information

    Several genetic studies on the harbor porpoise have been conducted in the Baltic region using a wide range of methods, sampling locations, sample pooling, and genetic markers, which are not consistent among research groups. The most common genetic analyses have used mitochondrial DNA, followed by microsatellites, Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA (RAPD), and isozymes to infer genetics.

    Three studies tested for genetic divergence of individuals inhabiting the Baltic Sea proper, as defined by the western boundary at the Limhamn and Darss underwater ridges (Stensland, 1997; Wang and Berggren, 1997; Wiemann et al., 2010) (Figure 2). These studies did not find consistent support for a genetically distinct subpopulation within the Baltic Sea proper. For instance, Stensland (1997) found no significant differences between samples from the Swedish portion of the Baltic Sea proper and the Skagerrak when using a RAPD technique. Wiemann et al. (2010) used mitochondrial and microsatellite DNA to demonstrate a small but significant genetic separation between the Baltic Sea proper and the Belt Seas. However, migration rates between the Baltic Sea proper and adjacent Belt Seas were estimated to be high, at 7.5 migrants per generation. Due to low genetic divergence, and evidence for continued gene flow and movement, the authors admitted that “it is difficult to argue in favour [sic] of a `demographic independency' of the Baltic Sea population.” Overall, existing research is consistent in supporting low or no divergence among individuals from the Baltic Sea proper as compared to others in the Baltic region, supporting continued genetic exchange and lack of reproductive isolation or demographic independence. Thus, due to the low extent of differentiation and lack of statistical confidence in these results, the weight of genetic evidence does not support a conclusion that there is a discrete Baltic Sea proper subpopulation in accordance with our DPS Policy.

    Even though available genetic information did not support the conclusion that there is a discrete Baltic Sea proper population, a thorough review of available genetic information for harbor porpoises in the entire Baltic region revealed consistent support that individuals from the region are genetically differentiated from those individuals inhabiting the North Sea. First, all of the microsatellite and mitochondrial DNA methods used by Andersen (1993; Anderson et al., 1995; Anderson et al., 1997; Anderson et al, 2001) differentiated samples from Inner Danish Waters (pooled sample set from the Kattegat, Belts, and Baltic Seas) and the North Sea. Tiedemann et al. (1996) also found a highly significant difference in mitochondrial haplotype compositions between their North Sea and Baltic Sea (pooled sample set from the Baltic Sea proper and Belt Seas) samples. These earlier studies provide consistent support that individuals in the North Sea have diverged from those inhabiting the waters of the Baltic region.

    The study by Wiemann et al. (2010) provides further evidence supporting divergence of North Sea individuals from other Baltic region individuals. They suggested that this genetic transition occurs in the Kattegat Sea, based on the most comprehensive mitochondrial and microsatellite DNA study on 497 harbor porpoises in the Baltic region. They detected overall weak population structure in the region. However, the population structure that was detected showed a tendency for the North, Skagerrak, and Kattegat Seas to cluster separately from the Belt and Inner Baltic Sea samples, with strong evidence for mixture of genetic lineages throughout the region. The transition zone in the Kattegat Sea area was supported by an abrupt shift in haplotype composition; one particular haplotype that is almost absent in the North Sea was the most abundant in the Belt Sea and Inner Baltic Sea. Furthermore, mitochondrial DNA pairwise comparisons of genetic divergence among Skagerrak and Kattegat samples showed significant divergence between them, indicating that the genetic split likely occurs somewhere within the Kattegat Sea. This study obtained generally strong agreement between independent data from microsatellite and mitochondrial haplotypes, providing robust support for this genetic transition zone in the Kattegat Sea.

    Based on the best available genetic data, there is evidence that the harbor porpoise is weakly diverged between the North Sea and the Baltic region past Kattegat and south/eastward into the Baltic Sea.

    Skull Comparison Information

    Skull comparisons of harbor porpoises in the Baltic Region have also been used to explore morphological evidence for population structure. The weight of available skull information aligns with genetic information in that it differentiates North Sea harbor porpoises of both sexes from those in the Baltic region. A finer population structure is seen for females within the Baltic region, but this same skull differentiation is not seen in males.

    Skull studies support the genetic information indicating a genetic break, or transition zone, between the North Sea and the Baltic region. Non-metric (not measured) skull characters of harbor porpoises from the North Sea and Baltic Sea are found to differ (both sexes; Kinze 1990, Huggenberger et al. 2000). In addition, harbor porpoise skull measurements are different between the North Sea and Baltic Sea (both sexes; Kinze, 1985, 1990; Borjesson and Berggren, 1997; Huggenberger et al., 2000; Galatius et al., 2012).

    Some skull studies achieved a finer-scale geographic resolution of harbor porpoises in the Baltic region. However, the statistical results of these studies are more robust in females than in males, suggesting male migration and mixing between areas (Huggenberger et al., 2002). Borjesson and Berggren (1997) examined harbor porpoise skulls from the Baltic Sea proper and the Kattegat and Skagerrak Seas and their statistical analyses showed geographically-relevant differences in skull characters between females from the Baltic Sea proper and the Kattegat and Skagerrak Seas, but not the same for males; five of 16 skull characters were significantly different in female samples, whereas one of 16 skull characters significantly differed in male samples.

    Galatius et al. (2012) used geometric morphometric skull comparisons (70 cranial landmarks registered with a 3-D digitizer) from six geographic areas—the North Sea, Skagerrak Sea, Kattegat Sea, Belt Seas, western Baltic, and Inner Baltic Sea and found highly significant shape differences in skulls among these six geographic areas. There were no significant differences between males and females or sampling seasons within any of the samples. Their results indicate a morphometric segregation of harbor porpoises within the Belt Seas/Inner Baltic Sea. However, this study stands alone in differentiating this fine population structuring within the Baltic region, as the weight of genetic and other skull information does not support the same conclusion.

    The weight of available skull information aligns with genetic information in that it differentiates North Sea harbor porpoises of both sexes from those in the Baltic region. Available skull information provides evidence of a finer population structure within the Baltic region for females, but not for males. This difference provides evidence of exchange of male, but not female, individuals between and among the Baltic region and the North Sea. One skull study was able to detail a fine population structure for both sexes within the Baltic region, but the weight of other available evidence does not support such a conclusion.

    Contaminant Profile Information

    A few studies have distinguished North Sea or Skagerrak harbor porpoises from the rest of the Baltic region based on contaminant levels and patterns. Bruhn et al. (1997; 1999) analyzed blubber samples in harbor porpoises from the German North Sea, Baltic Sea proper, and off the west coast of Greenland. Clear differences existed between the Baltic Sea proper and North Sea animals for certain contaminants. Berggren et al. (1999) found that mature males in the Swedish part of the Baltic Sea had significantly different contamination patterns of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) than animals from the Swedish Kattegat and Skagerrak coasts and from western Norway. This information is consistent with genetic information to show population differences between the North Sea and Baltic region.

    Tooth Ultrastructure Information

    Tooth ultrastructure in the harbor porpoise has been examined to differentiate between porpoises from different regions. Lockyer (1999) found different characteristics in tooth layers, which may be genetic in origin or influenced by life history events or other factors. The author found significant differences in several tooth characteristics between the North Sea, Skagerrak Sea, Kattegat Sea, Inner Danish waters, and the Baltic Sea proper. Lockyer (1999) stated the use of tooth ultrastructure alone “is not sufficient to allow an individual animal to be assigned to a particular management unit.” Thus, her results are not informative alone and should be combined with other studies when helping to delineate a population structure. The tooth ultrastructure study does not align with genetic and other information, since it differentiates a finer scale than is supported by the weight of available information. Therefore, we do not find this information persuasive.

    Conclusion Regarding Discreteness

    After combining the weight of evidence from genetic, skull, contaminant, and tooth studies we conclude that there is a discrete subpopulation of harbor porpoises in the Baltic region (from the Kattegat Sea, at the genetic break found by Wiemann et al. (2010), eastward into and including the Baltic Sea proper). Although there are shared haplotypes among harbor porpoises in the Baltic region and evidence of some male movement to suggest that a certain level of gene flow exists within the Baltic region, the repeated evidence of statistically significant genetic divergence from North Sea/Skagerrak samples guides our conclusion that this can be considered a discrete subpopulation. Available information on skull measurements and contaminant studies supports our conclusion based on genetic information, since these studies also differentiate North Sea/Skagerrak harbor porpoises from those in the Baltic region. Lockyer's (1999) study differentiated tooth structure among harbor porpoises from the North Sea, Skagerrak, Kattegat, Inner Danish waters, and the Baltic Sea; however, she caveats that this must be combined with other supporting information, and we did not find that the weight of other available information supports her proposed population structure. The weight of all evidence favors our conclusion of a population split at the Kattegat Sea.

    Since we determined that there is a discrete Baltic region subpopulation, we next determine whether the discrete population is significant to the taxon. From this point forward in the document, we define the Baltic harbor porpoise subpopulation as beginning at the Kattegat inward (south/east) to and including the Baltic Sea proper.

    Significance

    The identified discrete Baltic subpopulation does not persist in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon. Differences seen in harbor porpoise morphological characteristics (skull and tooth analyses) may be related to differences in environment, but available information is not informative enough at this point to link these characteristics to distinct habitats or specific adaptations at present. The habitat utilization reported for the Baltic harbor porpoise does not differ from general descriptions of the species' habitat preference. They are found in the shallow coastal areas of the Baltic region and their preference for shallow water calving and nursing does not differ from the general preference of the species. The opportunistic feeding nature of the Baltic harbor porpoise also does not show it to persist in a unique ecological setting. They target high lipid content fish to fulfill large energetic requirements, similar to the general preference of the species.

    There are insufficient data to conclude that loss of the identified discrete Baltic subpopulation would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon. The Baltic subpopulation comprises only a small geographic area in the total range of the species and even the subspecies. There are purported to be around ten other subpopulations in the North Atlantic (Tolley et al., 1999) and other harbor porpoise populations in the North Pacific and Black Sea. Additionally, available information reveals movement and some level of gene flow throughout the Baltic region through evidence of shared haplotypes, which is discussed further below. Although there are caveats to determining the exact level of mixing between the North Sea and Baltic region (and vice versa), there is evidence to show at least some level of mixing, such that a loss of the Baltic subpopulation would not lead to a significant gap in the range of the taxon. There is evidence of continued admixture and gene flow between these regions. This gene flow may be sustained by the high dispersal capacity and movement of these animals, and the lack of obvious physical barriers between the regions.

    While multiple studies confirm divergence between individuals from the North Sea and those inhabiting the Baltic region past the Kattegat Sea, the absolute extent of divergence is consistently weak. For instance, all analyses of mitochondrial haplotype distribution have revealed shared haplotypes throughout the region, even across the Kattegat `transition zone' (Tiedemann et al., 1996; Wang and Berggren, 1997; Wiemann et al., 2010). In Wiemann et al. (2010), an abrupt shift in microsatellite haplotype distribution was observed between the North Sea and Baltic region past the Kattegat Sea, but the two most abundant haplotypes only differ by a single point mutation. No physical barrier exists between the Kattegat and the North Sea, porpoises are known to move long distances (Teilmann et al., 2009), and evidence suggests that genetic connectivity can occur among harbor porpoises separated thousands of kilometers in the North Atlantic (Tolley et al., 1999; Fontaine et al., 2007). So, while the weak divergence (separating the North Sea from the Baltic region) is well supported, continued genetic exchange, connectivity, and ongoing reproduction among animals throughout the region is likely.

    There is no evidence that the identified discrete Baltic subpopulation represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range. Harbor porpoises are historically widespread in the northern hemisphere. As stated previously, within the North Atlantic subspecies, genetic studies differentiate harbor porpoises between the Eastern and Western Atlantic, with some level of mixing. The Baltic subpopulation does not represent the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range, as there are clearly many other existing natural populations.

    There is no evidence that the identified discrete Baltic population differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. The attachment of skull characters to unique environments or conditions would show evidence of adaptive genetic characteristics; however, the available harbor porpoise skull information from the Baltic region does not definitively attach characters to environmental connections to show that any skull differences are adaptive. One harbor porpoise skull study suggests that skull morphology could be attached to particular environments or conditions (Galatius et al., 2012). However, this is not supported by the weight of genetic evidence and is not even supported by other skull analyses, as they did not test adaptive skull characteristics and attach them to local or unique environmental conditions in the Baltic region. In addition, we did not find much discussion in the available literature about how differences in skull character for harbor porpoises may relate to adaptation to a particular prey item. Most of these skull studies attempt to delineate a population structure without testing the attachment of particular skull distinctions or characteristics.

    Conclusion Regarding Significance

    In conclusion, we find that the Baltic harbor porpoise subpopulation, while it may be discrete, does not meet any factors under the significance criterion. As such, we conclude that the Baltic harbor porpoise subpopulation is not a DPS as defined by our joint DPS Policy.

    Finding

    We find that the Baltic harbor porpoise subpopulation does not meet the DPS Policy criteria for qualifying as a DPS. Therefore, listing the petitioned entity under the ESA is not warranted.

    References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this notice can be found on our Web site and is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

    Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: March 18, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06749 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22--P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Synthetic Biology Standards Consortium—Kick-off Workshop AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public workshop.

    SUMMARY:

    NIST announces the Synthetic Biology Standards Consortium (SBSC)—Kick-off Workshop to be held on Tuesday March 31, 2015 from 9 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Pacific time. The SBSC will be convened as a standards setting consortium focused on the shared standards development needs of consortium participants. It will provide safe harbor for collaborative work through the formation of technical standards-setting working groups. Successful working groups will be organized around a clear vision of specific metrology products—standards, including reference materials, reference data, reference methods, and documentary standards—that will enable interoperability and reproducibility. The goal of the workshop is to identify several initial working groups with critical mass, leadership teams, and a clear path forward to deliver standards that support the growth of the bioeconomy.

    DATES:

    The Synthetic Biology Standards Consortium Kick-Off meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 31, 2015 from 9 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Pacific time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at Li Ka Shing Conference Center at Stanford University, 291 Campus Drive, Stanford, CA 94305. To register, go to http://tinyurl.com/sbsc-0315. There is no registration fee. Space is limited so please register early. Travel and parking information can be found on the registration page listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information contact Matthew Munson by email at [email protected] or by phone at (650) 690-6761, or Sarah Munro by email at [email protected] or by phone at (650) 690-6796, or Marc Salit by email at [email protected] or by phone at (650) 350-2338.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Synthetic biology will realize its full contributions to the bioeconomy when a robust metrology infrastructure is in place to enable coordination of labor and reuse of materials. Metrology products—standards, including reference materials, reference data, reference methods, and documentary standards—can enable business-to-business transactions at scale. The NIST-hosted Synthetic Biology Standards Consortium (SBSC) will collectively build the infrastructure to support a fully integrated global synthetic biology enterprise. NIST will provide standards development support for some consortium activities, as well as facilitation and technical leadership.

    The SBSC will be convened as a standards setting consortium focused on the shared standards development needs of consortium members. It will provide safe harbor for collaborative work through the formation of technical standards-setting working groups. Successful working groups will be organized around a clear vision of specific metrology products that will enable interoperability and reproducibility.

    Example metrology products might include a reference material such as a standard proteome set from whole cell lysates to be used as a benchmark for mass spectroscopy; reference data such as a DNA watermark repository; a reference method for DNA sequence verification; and a documentary standard for minimum information standards for biological protocol interoperability.

    The goal of the workshop is to identify several initial working groups with critical mass, leadership teams, and a clear path forward to deliver standards. Participants are invited to put forth proposals—your input is essential to the success of this work. Some candidate working groups are listed on the registration page. Proposals for working groups are strongly solicited and may be contributed via the workshop registration page (http://tinyurl.com/sbsc-0315), SBSC Trello page (http://tinyurl.com/NIST-SBSC), or email to the NIST team ([email protected]). The portfolio of working groups and the technical projects within working groups will be dynamic as needs shift and arise.

    At present, we expect that the workshop will conclude with:

    • A prioritized list of working groups with well-defined customers, scope, and initial products • Working group leadership teams to begin to coordinate technical implementation • A plan for continued engagement within the consortium, including ways of working together • Establishment of consortium operations, e.g., steering committee and advisory board

    The SBSC—Kick-off Workshop will be held on Tuesday March 31, 2015 from 9:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Pacific time. The workshop will be held in the Li Ka Shing Conference Center at Stanford University in Stanford, California. To register, go to http://tinyurl.com/sbsc-0315. There is no registration fee. Space is limited so please register early. Travel and parking information can be found on the registration page listed above.

    There is no cost for participating in the consortium or the workshop. No proprietary information will be shared at the workshop.

    Richard Cavanagh, Acting Associate Director for Laboratory Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06839 Filed 3-20-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Economic Survey of Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Captains and Crew Associated With the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Grouper-Tilefish Individual Fishing Quota (GT-IFQ) Program AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Dr. Larry Perruso, (305) 361-4278 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for a new information collection.

    The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to collect economic and attitudinal data from hired captains and crew regarding the performance of the GOM Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program five years after its implementation. These data will be used to estimate the effects of the GT-IFQ Program on these stakeholders for the five-year program review mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). The population targeted by the economic survey is hired captains and crew that participate in the GOM Grouper-Tilefish fishery. In addition, the information will be used to strengthen and improve fishery management decision-making, and satisfy legal mandates under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and other pertinent statues.

    II. Method of Collection

    The economic and attitudinal information sought will be collected via in-person surveys.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-XXXX.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (request for a new information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit institutions; individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 100 captains and 500 crew.

    Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 300.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: March 18, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06588 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Title: Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventories, and Orders Survey (M3).

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0008.

    Form Number(s): M-3(SD).

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Number of Respondents: 4,800.

    Average Hours per Response: 20 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 19,200.

    Needs and Uses: The U.S. Census Bureau is requesting an extension of the currently approved collection for the Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventories, and Orders (M3) survey. This survey collects monthly data from domestic manufacturers on Form M-3 (SD), which is mailed at the end of each month. Data requested are shipments, new orders, unfilled orders, and inventories by stage of fabrication. It is currently the only survey that provides broad-based monthly statistical data on the economic conditions in the domestic manufacturing sector. The survey is designed to measure current industrial activity and to provide an indication of future production commitments. The value of shipments measures the value of goods delivered during the month by domestic manufacturers. Estimates of new orders serve as an indicator of future production commitments and represent the current sales value of new orders received during the month, net of cancellations. Substantial accumulation or depletion of backlogs of unfilled orders measures excess (or deficient) demand for manufactured products. The level of inventories, especially in relation to shipments, is frequently used to monitor the business cycle.

    This survey provides an essential component of the current economic indicators needed for assessing the evolving status of the economy and formulating economic policy. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated this survey as a principal federal economic indicator. The shipments and inventory data are essential inputs to the gross domestic product (GDP), while the orders data are direct inputs to the leading economic indicator series. The GDP and the economic indicator series would be incomplete without these data. The survey also provides valuable and timely domestic manufacturing data for economic planning and analysis to business firms, trade associations, research and consulting agencies, and academia.

    The data are used for analyzing short- and long-term trends, both in the manufacturing sector and as related to other sectors of the economy. The data on value of shipments, especially when adjusted for change in inventory, measure current levels of production. New orders figures serve as an indicator of future production commitments. Changes in the level of unfilled orders, because of excess or shortfall of new orders compared with shipments, are used to measure the excess (or deficiency) in the demand for manufactured products. Changes in the level of inventories and the relation of these to shipments are used to project future movements in manufacturing activity. These statistics are valuable for analysts of business cycle conditions including members of the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the Federal Reserve Board (FRB), the Department of the Treasury, business firms, trade associations, private research and consulting agencies, and the academic community.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

    Frequency: Monthly.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, Sections 131, 182, and 193.

    This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: March 18, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06599 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-833] Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyester staple fiber (PSF) from Taiwan. The period of review (POR) is May 1, 2013, through April 30, 2014. The review covers two producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, Far Eastern New Century Corporation (FENC) and Nan Ya Plastics Corporation (Nan Ya). We preliminarily find that FENC has not sold subject merchandise at less than normal value and that Nan Ya had no shipments during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective March 24, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bryan Hansen or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3683, and (202) 482-1690, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the Order1 is PSF. The PSF subject to the order is currently classifiable under subheadings 5503.20.00.40, 5503.20.00.45, 5503.20.00.60, and 5503.20.00.65 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.2

    1See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, 65 FR 33807 (May 25, 2000) (Order).

    2 A full description of the scope of the Order is contained in the memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014” dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Preliminary Determination of No Shipments

    We published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of this administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PSF from Taiwan covering two companies, FENC and Nan Ya.3 We received a timely submission from Nan Ya reporting that it did not sell or export subject merchandise during the POR.4 On December 22, 2014, we transmitted a “No-Shipment Inquiry” to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) with respect to Nan Ya.5 Pursuant to this inquiry, we received no notification from CBP of entries of subject merchandise from Nan Ya. Accordingly, based on record evidence, we preliminarily determine that Nan Ya had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Further, consistent with our practice, we find that it is not appropriate to rescind the review with respect to Nan Ya, but rather to complete the review and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of this review.6

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 79 FR 36462 (June 27, 2014).

    4See Nan Ya's letter to the Secretary of Commerce regarding “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan for the Period from May 1, 2013 to April 30, 2014” dated August 22, 2014.

    5See CBP message 4356302 dated December 22, 2014.

    6See, e.g., Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 26922, 26923 (May 13, 2010), unchanged in Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 56989 (September 17, 2010).

    Methodology

    The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). With respect to FENC, export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).7 ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an Appendix to this notice.

    7 On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and Compliance changed the name of Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS) to AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). The Web site location was changed from http://iaaccess.trade.gov to http://access.trade.gov. The Final Rule changing the references to the Regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014).

    Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent exists for FENC for the period May 1, 2013, through April 30, 2014.

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.8 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.9

    8See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    9See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2) and 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS which is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.10 Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs.

    10See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

    Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine and CBP shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. If FENC's weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis in the final results of this review, we will calculate an importer-specific assessment rate on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for each importer's examined sales and the total entered value of the sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). If FENC's weighted-average dumping margin continues to be zero or de minimis in the final results of review, we will instruct CBP not to assess duties on any of its entries in accordance with the Final Modification for Reviews, i.e., “{w}here the weighted-average margin of dumping for the exporter is determined to be zero or de minimis, no antidumping duties will be assessed.” 11

    11See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8102 (February 14, 2012).

    The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.12 This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by FENC for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

    12 For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice).

    Consistent with the Assessment Policy Notice, if we continue to find that Nan Ya had no shipments of subject merchandise, following issuance of the final results of review, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Nan Ya for which this company did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

    We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of PSF from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for FENC will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above including Nan Ya, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the manufacturer of the merchandise for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 7.31 percent.13 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    13 The all-others rate established in the Order.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

    Dated: March 17, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of the Order Preliminary Determination of No Shipments Discussion of the Methodology Comparisons to Normal Value A. Determination of Comparison Method B. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis Product Comparisons Date of Sale Export Price Normal Value A. Home Market Viability as Comparison Market B. Level of Trade C. Cost of Production 1. Calculation of Cost of Production 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices 3. Results of the Cost of Production Test D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices Currency Conversion Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-06754 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD848 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Research Steering Committee.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 8, 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 Research Steering Committee will: (a) Review the final report for the cooperative research project “Large Mesh [Belly] Panel in Small Mesh Fisheries as a Method to Reduce Yellowtail Flounder Bycatch in Cultivator Shoal”; (b) review any additional analysis performed for the cooperative research project “Large Mesh [Belly] Panel in Small Mesh Fisheries as a Method to Reduce Yellowtail Flounder Bycatch in Georges Bank”; and (c) discuss possible improvements to the research set-aside process. The Committee also may receive an update on the Council-funded collaborative groundfish research project managed by the Northeast Consortium (Supplemental Request for Proposal due March 17, 2015). Other issues may also be discussed.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    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 19, 2015. William D. Chappell, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06659 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD854 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Electronic Monitoring Working Group to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the NOAA Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930; telephone: (978) 281-9300; fax: (978) 281-9333.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The items of discussion on the agenda are:

    The group will continue development of the white paper, Toward Implementation of Electronic Monitoring in groundfish fishery sectors. The group will also discuss recommendations. Other business will be discussed as necessary.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during 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

    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 19, 2015. William D. Chappell, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06660 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-979] Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) received information sufficient to warrant initiation of a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (“solar cells”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). Based on a request from Neo Solar Power Corporation (“Neo Solar”), DelSolar Co., Ltd. (“DelSolar Taiwan”), and DelSolar (Wujiang) Ltd. (“DelSolar Wujiang”), the Department intends to determine, for purposes of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from the PRC, whether Neo Solar is the successor-in-interest to DelSolar Taiwan, an exporter assigned an exporter-producer rate in the investigation in this proceeding.

    DATES:

    Effective March 24, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erin Kearney or Howard Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0167 or (202) 482-5193, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On December 7, 2012, the Department published a notice of the Order in the solar cells proceeding in the Federal Register.1 On February 4, 2015, NeoSolar, DelSolar Taiwan, and DelSolar Wujiang requested that the Department conduct an expedited changed circumstances review pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and section 351.216(b) of the Department's regulations, to determine that Neo Solar is the successor-in-interest to DelSolar Taiwan for purposes of the Order. In their request, Neo Solar, DelSolar Taiwan, and DelSolar Wujiang provided lists of shareholders, managers, and boards of directors of Neo Solar and DelSolar Taiwan, business licenses of DelSolar Taiwan and DelSolar Wujiang, and a merger agreement and press release describing the merger of Neo Solar and DelSolar Taiwan.

    1See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 73018 (December 7, 2012) (“Order”)

    On March 6, 2015, SolarWorld Americas, Inc. (“SolarWorld”), the petitioner in the underlying investigation, submitted comments on the changed circumstances review request. SolarWorld stated that the Department should reject the request for a changed circumstances review because Neo Solar failed to establish that it is eligible for a separate rate and that it operates as the same business entity as DelSolar Taiwan. SolarWorld stated that if the Department initiates a changed circumstances review with respect to Neo Solar, the Department should require Neo Solar to provide additional information about its company operations before making a preliminary successor-in-interest determination.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials.

    This order covers crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.

    Merchandise under consideration may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, building-integrated modules, building-integrated panels, or other finished goods kits. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of merchandise under consideration are included in the scope of this order.

    Excluded from the scope of this order are thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS).

    Also excluded from the scope of this order are crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000 mm2 in surface area, that are permanently integrated into a consumer good whose function is other than power generation and that consumes the electricity generated by the integrated crystalline silicon photovoltaic cell. Where more than one cell is permanently integrated into a consumer good, the surface area for purposes of this exclusion shall be the total combined surface area of all cells that are integrated into the consumer good.

    Modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third-country from cells produced in the PRC are covered by this order; however, modules, laminates, and panels produced in the PRC from cells produced in a third-country are not covered by this order.

    Merchandise covered by this order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (“HTSUS”) under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.80, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030, and 8501.31.8000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

    Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review

    Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act, the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of a request from an interested party which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of an order. In accordance with section 751(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d), the Department determines that the information submitted by Neo Solar, DelSolar Taiwan, and DelSolar Wujiang constitutes sufficient evidence to conduct a changed circumstances review of the Order.2

    2See also 19 CFR 351.221.

    In a changed circumstances review involving a successor-in-interest determination, the Department typically examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in: (1) Management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base.3 While no single factor or combination of factors will necessarily be dispositive, the Department generally will consider the new company to be the successor to the predecessor if the resulting operations are essentially the same as those of the predecessor company.4 Thus, if the record demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as the predecessor company, the Department may assign the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor.5

    3See, e.g., Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Termination, in Part, of the Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 76 FR 64898 (October 19, 2011); Certain Pasta from Turkey: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 74 FR 26373 (June 2, 2009).

    4Id.

    5Id.

    After reviewing the information provided in the request for a changed circumstances review, we determined that Neo Solar, DelSolar Taiwan, and DelSolar Wujiang provided sufficient evidence to warrant a review to determine if Neo Solar is the successor-in-interest to DelSolar Taiwan. Therefore, pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d), we are initiating a changed circumstances review. However, we also determined that there is a need to issue a questionnaire to gather additional information, as provided for by 19 CFR 351.221(b)(2), before issuing a preliminary determination in this review. Therefore, the Department is not conducting this review on an expedited basis by publishing the preliminary results in conjunction with this notice of initiation.

    The Department will issue the preliminary results of this changed circumstances review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3), which will set forth the factual and legal conclusions upon which the preliminary results are based, and a description of any action proposed because of those results. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results of the review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), the Department will issue the final results of its AD changed circumstance review within 270 days after the date on which the review is initiated.

    During the course of this changed circumstances review, we will not change the cash deposit requirements for the merchandise subject to review. The cash deposit will only be altered, if warranted, pursuant to the final results of this review.

    This initiation notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(b) and 351.221(b)(1).

    Dated: March 18, 2015. Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06750 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Economic Survey of Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Dealers Associated With the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Grouper-Tilefish Individual Fishing Quota (GT-IFQ) Program AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Dr. Larry Perruso, (305) 361-4278 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for a new information collection.

    The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to collect economic and attitudinal data from reef fish dealers regarding the performance of the GOM Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program five years after its implementation. These data will be used to estimate the effects of the GT-IFQ Program on these stakeholders for the five-year program review mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). The population targeted by the economic survey is all federally licensed dealers that participate in the GOM reef fish fishery. In addition, the information will be used to strengthen and improve fishery management decision-making, and satisfy legal mandates under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and other pertinent statues.

    II. Method of Collection

    The economic and attitudinal information sought will be collected via in-person and mail surveys.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-XXXX.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (request for a new information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 168.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 168.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: March 18, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06589 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Title: Survey of Residential Building or Zoning Permit Systems.

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0350.

    Form Number(s): C-411(V), C-411(M), C-411(C).

    Type of Request: Reinstatement, without change, of an expired collection.

    Number of Respondents: 2,000.

    Average Hours per Response: 15 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 500.

    Needs and Uses: The U.S. Census Bureau is requesting reinstatement of the recently expired Form C-411, “Survey of Residential Building or Zoning Permit Systems.” The Census Bureau produces statistics used to monitor activity in the large and dynamic construction industry. These statistics help state and local governments and the federal government, as well as private industry, to analyze this important sector of the economy. The accuracy of the Census Bureau statistics regarding the amount of construction authorized depends on data supplied by building and zoning officials throughout the country. The Census Bureau uses Form C-411 to obtain information from state and local building permit officials needed for updating the universe of permit-issuing places which serves as the sampling frame for the Report of Privately-Owned Residential Building or Zoning Permits Issued (OMB number 0607-0094), also known as the Building Permits Survey (BPS), and the Survey of Housing Starts, Sales, and Completions (OMB number 0607-0110), also known as Survey of Construction (SOC). These two sample surveys provide widely used measures of construction activity, including the principal economic indicators New Residential Construction and New Home Sales. Data from the BPS and SOC are also used by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) in the calculation of estimates of the Residential Fixed Investment portion of the Nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In addition, data from the BPS are used by the Census Bureau in the calculation of annual population estimates; these estimates are widely used by government agencies to allocate funding and other resources to local governments.

    The questions on Form C-411 pertain to the legal requirements for issuing building or zoning permits in the local jurisdictions. Information is obtained on such items as geographic coverage and types of construction for which permits are issued.

    No changes are planned to the C-411(V) form. We have updated the form layouts of forms C-411(M) and C-411(C) to provide clarification and improve questionnaire flow.

    The appropriate form is sent to a jurisdiction when the Manufacturing and Construction Division (MCD) has reason to believe that a new permit system has been established or an existing one has changed. This is based on information from a variety of sources including survey respondents, regional councils and the Census Bureau's Geography Division which keeps abreast of changes in corporate status. Responses typically approach 85 percent.

    We use the information to verify the existence of new permit systems or changes to existing systems. Based on the information, we add new permit-issuing places to the universe, delete places no longer issuing permits, and make changes to the universe to reflect those places that have merged.

    Failure to maintain the universe of permit-issuing places would result in deficient samples and inaccurate statistics. This in turn jeopardizes the accuracy of the above mentioned economic indicators. These indicators are closely monitored by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and other economic policy makers because of the sensitivity of the housing industry to changes in interest rates.

    Affected Public: State, local or Tribal government.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, Sections 9(b), 161, and 182.

    This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: March 18, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06597 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: STORMREADY®, STORMREADY/TSUNAMIREADYTM, AND STORMREADY® SUPPORTER Application Forms

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0419.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 265.

    Average Hours Per Response: Initial applications, 2 hours; renewal applications, 1 hour.

    Burden Hours: 505.

    Needs and Uses: StormReady and TsunamiReady are voluntary programs offered as a means of providing guidance and incentive to officials interested in improving their respective hazardous weather operations. The StormReady Application Form, Tsunami-Ready Application Form and TsunamiReady/StormReady Application Form are used by localities to apply for initial StormReady or TsunamiReady and StormReady recognition and renewal of that recognition every six years. The government will use the information collected to determine whether a community has met all of the criteria to receive StormReady and/or TsunamiReady recognition. In addition, businesses, schools, non-profit organizations and other non-governmental entities often establish severe weather safety plans and actively promote severe weather safety awareness activities but may not have the resources necessary to fulfill all the eligibility requirements to achieve the full StormReady recognition. These entities may apply through the StormReady Supporter program for recognition.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; not for profit institutions; state, local or tribal governments.

    Frequency: One time or every six years.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: March 19, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06680 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-KE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Notice of Public Workshop on Quantum Information Science and the Needs of U.S. Industry AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public workshop.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology announces a workshop on Quantum Information Science and the Needs of U.S. Industry, to be held on Friday, April 10, 2015. NIST is holding this workshop on behalf of the Interagency Working Group on Quantum Information Science of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Committee on Science (CoS) Subcommittee on Physical Sciences (PSSC). The purpose of the workshop is to solicit input from stakeholders about the broader needs of the industrial community in the area of quantum information science (QIS). Topics to be discussed include opportunities for research and development, emerging market areas, barriers to near-term and future applications, and workforce needs. Information gathered at this workshop will be used in the development and coordination of U. S. Government policies, programs, and budgets to advance U.S. competitiveness in QIS.

    DATES:

    The Workshop on Quantum Information Science and the Needs of Industry will be held on Friday, April 10, 2015 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time. Attendees must register by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 3, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The workshop will be held at NIST, 100 Bureau Dr., Gaithersburg, MD, 20899. Please note admittance instructions under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information contact Gail Newrock, Carl Williams, or Claire Cramer by email at [email protected], or Gail Newrock by phone at (301) 975-3200. To register, go to: http://www.nist.gov/pml/div684/quantum-information-science-innovation-and-the-path-forward.cfm. Additional information about the workshop will be available at this web address as the workshop approaches.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Twenty years of research and development work in QIS is producing the first niche applications, and there is an increasing level of international activity in the field. The Interagency Working Group in QIS was chartered in October 2014 to develop and coordinate policies, programs, and budgets to take advantage of recent progress in this area and position the United States as a leader in the international research community. The Interagency Working Group includes participants from the Departments of Commerce, Defense, and Energy; the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; and the National Science Foundation. The purpose of the workshop on Quantum Information Science and the Needs of U.S. Industry is to solicit input from stakeholders about the broader needs of the industrial community in the area of quantum information science (QIS). Topics to be discussed include opportunities for research and development, emerging market areas, barriers to near-term and future applications, and workforce needs. Information gathered at this workshop will be used in the development and coordination of U. S. Government policies, programs, and budgets to advance U.S. competitiveness in QIS.

    This workshop will focus on the needs of industry in the following areas:

    (1) Opportunities

    Quantum information science includes, for example, quantum computing and processing, quantum algorithms and programming languages, quantum communications, quantum sensors, quantum devices, single photon sources, and detectors. What areas of pre-competitive QIS research and development appear most promising? What areas should be the highest priorities for Federal investment? What are the emerging frontiers? What methods of monitoring new developments are most effective?

    (2) Market Areas and Applications

    The 2008 “A Federal Vision for Quantum Information Science” 1 identified exciting new possibilities for QIS impact, including mineral exploration, medical imaging, and quantum computing. Now, six years later, what market areas are well-positioned to benefit from new developments in QIS?

    1http://www.nist.gov/pml/div684/upload/FederalVisionQIS.pdf.

    (3) Barriers

    Funding levels and mechanisms, technology, dissemination of information, and technology transfer are some of the potential barriers to adoption of QIS technology. What are the greatest barriers to advancing important near-term and future applications of QIS and what should be done to address these barriers?

    (4) Workforce Needs

    Addressing opportunities in QIS and barriers to applications requires a workforce spanning many disciplines, ranging from computer science and information theory to atomic scale manipulation of materials, and possessing a range of knowledge and skills. What knowledge and skills are most important for a workforce capable of addressing the opportunities and barriers? In what areas is the current workforce strong, and in what areas is it weak? What are the best mechanisms for equipping workers with the needed knowledge and skills?

    The workshop will include invited presentations by leading experts from academia, industry, and government and time for group discussion.

    There is no cost for participating in the workshop. No proprietary information will be accepted, presented or discussed as part of the workshop, and all information accepted, presented or discussed at the workshop will be in the public domain.

    Workshop Registration: All workshop participants must pre-register at the following web address to be admitted: http://www.nist.gov/pml/div684/quantum-information-science-innovation-and-the-path-forward.cfm. Anyone wishing to attend this meeting must register by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 3, 2015, in order to attend. Also, please note that under the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-13), federal agencies, including NIST, can only accept a state-issued driver's license or identification card for access to federal facilities if issued by states that are REAL ID compliant or have an extension. NIST also currently accepts other forms of federal-issued identification in lieu of a state-issued driver's license. For detailed information please contact Gail Newrock at (301) 975-3200 or visit: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/visitor/.

    Richard R. Cavanagh, Acting Associate Director for Laboratory Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06848 Filed 3-20-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No. CFPB-2014-0016] Disclosure of Consumer Complaint Narrative Data AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Final Policy Statement.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (the “Bureau”) is issuing a final policy statement (“Final Policy Statement”) to provide guidance on how the Bureau plans to exercise its discretion to disclose publicly unstructured consumer complaint narrative data (“narratives” or “consumer narratives”) via its web-based, public facing database (the “Consumer Complaint Database” or “Database”). Only those narratives for which opt-in consumer consent is obtained and a robust personal information scrubbing standard and methodology applied will be eligible for disclosure. The Final Policy Statement supplements and amends the Bureau's existing policy statements establishing and expanding the Consumer Complaint Database.1

    1 Disclosure of Certain Credit Card Complaint Data, 77 FR 37558 (June 22, 2012) (“2012 Notice of Final Policy Statement”); Disclosure of Consumer Complaint Data, 78 FR 21218 (Apr. 10, 2013) (“2013 Notice of Final Policy Statement”).

    DATES:

    Applicability date: The Bureau will not publish any consented-to narrative for at least 90 days after publication in the Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Pluta, Assistant Director, Office of Consumer Response, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, at (202) 435-7306.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 5492(a), 5493(b)(3), (d), 5496(c)(4), 5511(b), (c), 5512, 5534(a), (b).

    I. Overview A. Final Policy Statement

    Under the Final Policy Statement, the Bureau extends its existing practice of disclosing data associated with consumer complaints via the Consumer Complaint Database to include narratives for which opt-in consumer consent is obtained and a robust personal information scrubbing standard and methodology has been applied. The purposes of the Consumer Complaint Database include providing consumers with timely and understandable information about consumer financial products and services, and improving the functioning, transparency, and efficiency of markets for such products and services. The Bureau believes that adding additional information to the Consumer Complaint Database, here narratives and structured company responses, is consistent with and promotes these purposes.

    II. Background A. Complaint System

    In the Bureau's previous notices of its policy statements, establishing and expanding the Consumer Complaint Database, the Bureau generally described how the Office of Consumer Response (“Consumer Response”) handles consumer complaints (collectively the “Complaint System”).2 This Final Policy Statement does not affect how a consumer's complaint is substantively handled by the Bureau. Consumer Response screens all complaints submitted by consumers based on several criteria, including whether the complaint should be routed to another regulator and whether the complaint is complete. Screened complaints are forwarded via a secure web portal to the appropriate company. The company then has 15 calendar days to provide an initial response and up to 60 calendar days to provide a final response. Companies have the ability within these timeframes to respond administratively to the Bureau, e.g., responding that no commercial relationship exists between the complaining consumer and the company in question. Typically, the company reviews the complaint, communicates with the consumer as needed, and determines what action to take in response. After the company responds to the consumer and the Bureau via the secure company portal, the Bureau invites the consumer to review the response and provide feedback. Some complaints are individually reviewed by Consumer Response investigations staff. All complaints are subject to follow-up and further investigation by Consumer Response and other parts of the Bureau.3

    2 2012 Notice of Final Policy Statement, 77 FR at 37559 (June 22, 2012); 2013 Notice of Final Policy Statement, 78 FR at 21219 (April 10, 2013).

    3 The Complaint System is described in more detail in the 2013 Consumer Response Annual Report (March 31, 2014) at: http://www.consumerfinance.gov/reports/2013-consumer-response-annual-report./

    The Bureau makes publicly available some data it collects as part of its complaint handling function, while continually striving to protect the sensitive information contained within that data. One way the Bureau currently accomplishes this is by sharing some fields from de-identified individual-level complaint data with the public through the Consumer Complaint Database. The Database was launched on June 19, 2012. It was initially populated with credit card complaint data but has since been expanded to include complaint data about other products, e.g., mortgages, bank accounts and services, student loans, vehicle and other consumer loans, credit reporting, money transfers, debt collection, payday loans, and prepaid cards. Data from complaints are disclosed in the Database the earlier of: (1) An initial response to the consumer and the Bureau (confirming a commercial relationship with the consumer) or (2) 15 calendar days after the complaint was sent to the company. Data from a complaint is not published in the Database if, among other reasons, the company suspects the complaint was submitted in furtherance of a fraud or it indicates to the Bureau that it does not have a commercial relationship with the consumer.

    B. Overview of Public Comments

    In its Proposed Policy Statement Regarding Disclosure of Unstructured Narrative Data From Consumer Complaints and Company Responses (“Proposed Policy Statement”), the Bureau proposed expanding its Consumer Complaint Database to include narratives submitted by consumers as well as public-facing narrative responses from companies.4 The Bureau received 137 unique comments from, among others, consumer groups, trade associations, companies, and individuals. In some cases, several organizations jointly submitted a single comment letter. One financial reform organization, Americans for Financial Reform (“AFR”), submitted a single set of comments on behalf of 49 consumer, civil rights, privacy, and open government groups.5 The Bureau reviewed unique comments from 39 individuals, as well as substantially identical comment letters from approximately 30,000 individuals expressing support for the Proposed Policy Statement.

    4 Disclosure of Consumer Complaint Narrative Data, 79 FR 42765, 42767 (July 23, 2014).

    5 This group included: Americans for Financial Reform; Alliance for a Just Society; Arkansas Community Organization; California Reinvestment Coalition; Connecticut Citizen Action Group; Center for Digital Democracy; Center for Responsible Lending; Community Legal Services, Philadelphia; Connecticut Fair Housing Center; Consumer Action; Consumer Federation of America; Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety; Consumer Watchdog; Demos; Electronic Privacy Information Center; Empire Justice Center; Florida Alliance for Consumer Protection; Home Defenders League; International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW); Keystone Progress; Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; Massachusetts Consumers' Coalition; MASSPIRG; Miami Valley Fair Housing Center, Dayton, Ohio; Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment; NAACP; National Association of Consumer Advocates; National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low income clients); National Council of La Raza; National Fair Housing Alliance; National People's Action; New Economy Project; New Jersey Citizen Action; New Jersey Communities; United Oregon Consumer League; Privacy Rights Clearinghouse; Privacy Times; Project on Government Oversight; Public Citizen; Public Justice Center; South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center; Southwest Center for Economic Integrity; Texas Legal Services Center; The Institute for College Access and Success; U.S.PIRG; Virginia Citizens Consumer Council; Woodstock Institute; and the World Privacy Forum.

    Commenters provided feedback on numerous aspects of the Proposed Policy Statement. Almost all comments concerned the expansion of the Database to include narratives. Companies and their trade associations generally opposed the inclusion of narratives in the Database. Many industry commenters asserted that the publication of “unverified” consumer narratives would unfairly damage the reputations of companies. Several trade associations also commented that inclusion of unstructured narratives is contrary to the Bureau's stated mission of being data-driven.

    Per the AFR's comment letter, consumer, civil rights, privacy, and open government groups supported the inclusion of narratives, asserting that among other things narratives would: “(1) Empower consumers with timely, valuable information pre-purchase, in order to prevent problems and reward companies that respect their customers, and post-purchase, in order to report unreasonable, unfair or deceptive practices and alert others in advance of problems; (2) allow others to assist the Bureau in detecting destructive patterns before they do extensive damage; and (3) encourage more people to use the Database, as it becomes a more useful tool, creating a cycle of increased information about consumer experiences in the financial services marketplace.” These groups and individual commenters endorsed the goals underlying the publication of consumer narratives.

    Several commenters focused on normalization, or the use of some metric to provide context for data, for example, by including information on the number of accounts a company has for each particular product or service. Some industry commenters noted the risk of potential consumer re-identification and the impact certain laws may have on a company's ability to respond publicly to a consumer's complaint. Both trade associations and consumer groups submitted written comments advising the Bureau to be mindful of the privacy risks associated with narrative publication. Nonetheless, four nationally recognized privacy groups—Electronic Privacy Information Center, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Privacy Times, and World Privacy Forum—signed AFR's comment letter in support of the Proposed Policy Statement. Additionally, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse submitted an individual comment generally supportive of disclosing narratives.

    Many submissions included comments directed to the Bureau's method of processing consumer complaints, i.e., the Complaint System. To the extent that these comments also related to the scope of the Proposed Policy Statement, the Bureau addresses them below. Whether addressed below or not, the Bureau welcomes operational feedback and intends to continue to refine its Complaint System over time.6

    6 Consumer Response maintains several feedback mechanisms for participants in the Complaint System and has plans to expand this capability over time.

    III. Summary of Comments Received, Bureau Responses, and Resulting Policy Statement Changes

    This section provides a summary of the comments received by subject matter to the Proposed Policy Statement. It also summarizes the Bureau's assessment of the comments by subject matter and, where applicable, describes the resulting changes that the Bureau is making in the Final Policy Statement including a change to how companies may respond publicly to individual complaints. All such changes concern the Consumer Complaint Database. There are no policy changes regarding the Bureau's issuance of its own complaint data reports, e.g., the Consumer Response Annual Report.

    A. The Policy Statement Process

    The Bureau is committed to transparency and robust engagement with the public regarding its actions. Although not required by law to do so, the Bureau voluntarily solicited and received public comments on the Proposed Policy Statement. A few commenters requested a 60-day response period as opposed to the 30 days originally provided, a request the Bureau granted.7 The Bureau received substantial public feedback expressing a range of viewpoints, and it has carefully considered the comments received, as described in detail below. As stated in the Final Policy Statement, the Bureau plans to monitor the effectiveness of its policy on an ongoing basis and to continue to engage with the public, including regulated entities, as it assesses the efficacy of the Final Policy Statement.

    7 Disclosure of Consumer Complaint Narrative Data, 79 FR 45183 (Aug. 4, 2014).

    Several commenters commended the Bureau on providing the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Policy Statement. A number of trade associations commented that the proposal could not be finalized in a general statement of policy and was instead a binding legislative rule subject to the procedural requirements of notice and comment rulemaking.8 Several of these groups argued that rulemaking was required because the policy would obligate companies to provide public responses or else suffer reputational harm from unanswered complaint narratives. Some groups stated that the policy would impose new duties on the Bureau to verify the details contained in the narratives or to protect consumer privacy by removing information that could lead to consumer re-identification. Two groups commented that § 1022(c)(6)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires the Bureau to issue rules concerning the confidential treatment of information, dictates that any decision involving confidential information has to be enacted as a legislative rule.9 These groups also commented that the proposal would effectively amend the Bureau's existing privacy regulations by releasing confidential information and therefore had to be enacted through notice and comment. Two groups pointed to the example of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which provided details about its statutorily mandated database of consumer product safety complaints via a legislative rule. The groups argued that the Bureau was required to follow the same process in announcing this policy. Finally, several of these groups suggested that the importance of releasing consumer narratives or the interest in transparency meant that full notice and comment procedures were required.

    8 The Administrative Procedure Act exempts general statements of policy from notice and comment. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).

    9 12 U.S.C. 5512(c)(6)(A).

    The Final Policy Statement is meant to inform the public about the Bureau's intended use of its discretionary authority to release certain de-identified information. The planned addition of narratives to the Consumer Complaint Database is properly the subject of a policy statement and does not require formal rulemaking.10 The Bureau has made minor changes to the Final Policy Statement to clarify its nature as a general statement of policy. The policy neither binds private parties with any legal responsibilities nor creates any legal rights. As the Final Policy Statement makes clear, companies are under no obligation to recommend public-facing responses and will face no legal consequences by declining to do so. That some companies may decide it is worthwhile to recommend a public response does not rise to the level of a legal obligation.11 For their part, consumers are under no obligation to opt in to sharing their stories, as the consent language will make clear by stating that the decision whether to provide consent for public disclosure does not otherwise affect how the Bureau handles the complaint.

    10 To the extent any features of this policy were considered binding on any party, the Bureau believes they would constitute procedural rules, which are likewise exempt from the requirements of notice and comment. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).

    11 See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 452 F.3d 798 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (agency's general statement of policy was not a binding legislative rule simply because it had practical effects, rather than legal consequences, for private parties). Several commenters rely on Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Homeland Security, 653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011), but the Bureau does not believe that case supports their argument. The agency action in that case, in the court's view, imposed legally binding requirements on airline passengers to go through heightened security procedures or be barred from entering airport boarding areas. The opportunity to provide a public response narrative does not impose any similar binding requirement.

    The Bureau is also not binding itself with new legal duties. As explained below, the Bureau is not committing to verify the details contained in each complaint narrative. Although the Bureau plans to scrub identifying information from the consumer narratives, it intends to do so in order to assist consumers and ensure its compliance with existing laws, rather than through the assumption of such a duty through the present Final Policy Statement. The addition of narratives to the Consumer Complaint Database is also in keeping with the Bureau's stated intent to continue refining the way it receives, shares, and makes use of consumer complaint information as well as with its past practice of making improvements to the Database.12 As part of advancing that effort, and in response to comments it received in response to the Proposed Policy Statement, the Bureau is also publishing a Request for Information on how it might create or enhance opportunities for consumers to share accounts of positive experiences they have had with providers of consumer financial products and services.

    12 See 2013 Notice of Final Policy Statement, 78 FR at 21226 (announcing planned changes to Public Complaint Database and stating Bureau's intention to study and solicit further public feedback on the efficacy of its complaint policies)(April 10, 2013); 2012 Notice of Final Policy Statement, 77 FR at 37568 (same)(June 22, 2012).

    The suggestion that § 1022(c)(6)(A) requires the Bureau to finalize this policy as a legislative rule is unpersuasive. That provision mandates that the Bureau “prescribe rules regarding the confidential treatment of information” it obtains in exercising its authorities. The Bureau has previously prescribed rules regarding the confidential treatment of information.13 The disclosure contemplated by this policy is consistent with those rules, and therefore does not require an amendment to those rules. Finally, as noted previously, several commenters contend that the past practice of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the general interest in transparency, or the importance of releasing consumer narratives require the Bureau to proceed via legislative rulemaking. None of these factors provides a legal basis for concluding that notice and comment rulemaking is required under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Bureau also notes that it has made the policy process transparent by voluntarily soliciting public comment and extending the comment period from 30 to 60 days.

    13 Disclosure of Records and Information, 78 FR 11484 (Feb. 15, 2013).

    B. Legal Authority for Consumer Complaint Database

    In the Bureau's previous notices of its policy statements establishing and expanding the Consumer Complaint Database, the Bureau addressed in detail several comments related to the Bureau's authority to establish a Database.14 Several comments in response to the Proposed Policy Statement implicate the same or similar arguments concerning the Bureau's legal authority. The Bureau directs readers to and incorporates its prior discussions, and clarifies portions here.

    14 2012 Notice of Final Policy Statement, 77 FR at 37560-61 (June 22, 2012); 2013 Notice of Final Policy Statement, 78 FR at 21220 (April 10, 2013).

    As was true with respect to the Bureau's prior two policy statements, commenters contend that the Dodd-Frank Act expressly delineates the circumstances and manner in which the Bureau may collect, resolve, and share consumer complaints with others, and that a public-facing database is not explicitly included. Therefore, by adverse inference, they assert that the Dodd-Frank Act does not authorize the Database.

    Similarly, as was true with respect to the Bureau's prior policy statements, commenters argue that § 1034 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires the Bureau to establish “reasonable procedures to provide a timely response to consumers . . . to complaints against, or inquiries concerning, a covered person,” 15 does not authorize the creation of a public-facing complaint database that, instead of aiding complainants, enables data mining and market research. Commenters also make arguments, similar to past comments, that § 1021 and § 1022 do not expressly grant authority for the Bureau to establish a public-facing database or disclose consumer complaint narratives to the public.16 They also contend that the Dodd-Frank Act's restrictions on publishing confidential information block the implementation of such a database, including narratives.

    15 12 U.S.C. 5534(a).

    16 Two commenters point to American Petroleum Institute v. SEC, 953 F. Supp. 2d 5 (D.D.C. 2013), in support of the argument that the Bureau lacks authority for the Database. In that case, the SEC contended that a statutory provision unambiguously required public disclosure of certain annual reports from regulated entities. The court held that the provision did not unambiguously require public disclosure and that the SEC had improperly cabined its discretion. Id. at 12-18. The Bureau believes American Petroleum Institute does not suggest the Bureau lacks authority to disclose consumer complaint narratives. That case addressed statutory provisions not at issue here. Moreover, the Bureau acknowledges its discretion with respect to the public disclosure described in the Policy Statement, and it does not believe that such disclosure is unambiguously required under the statute.

    The Bureau has considered these comments and concluded that the Database is authorized by the Dodd-Frank Act. Among other things, § 1013(b)(3) authorizes the establishment of a unit “whose functions shall include establishing a single, toll-free telephone number, a Web site, and a database or utilizing an existing database to facilitate the centralized collection of, monitoring of, and response to consumer complaints regarding consumer financial products or services.” 17 Section 1034(a) directs the Bureau to establish “reasonable procedures to provide a timely response to consumers, in writing where appropriate, to complaints against, or inquiries concerning, a covered person . . .,” and § 1034(b) provides that “[a] covered person subject to supervision and primary enforcement by the Bureau pursuant to section 1025 shall provide a timely response, in writing where appropriate, to the Bureau, the prudential regulators, and any other agency having jurisdiction over such covered person concerning a consumer complaint or inquiry. . . .”18 These provisions require and establish conditions for specific methods of disclosure and responses, but do not express or imply any limit on the Bureau's authority to disclose consumer complaint information in other ways. The Database as described would facilitate and supplement, not contravene, these provisions. The Database is reasonably encompassed within the Bureau's authorities, especially in light of the Bureau's other statutory objectives and functions, including promoting financial education, providing timely information, and ensuring that markets operate transparently.19 In addition, with prescribed limitations, the Bureau has broad discretionary authority to release information obtained during the exercise of its statutory functions and the Database, as described in the Proposed Policy Statement, would not contravene any legal constraints on the Bureau.

    17 12 U.S.C. 5493(b)(3)(A).

    18 12 U.S.C. 5534(a) & (b).

    19 12 U.S.C. 5511.

    Publication of such information would also be authorized by the Bureau's express authority pursuant to § 1022 to make certain information, including information from consumer complaints, public: Section 1022(c)(3)(B) states that the Bureau “may make public such information obtained by the Bureau under this section as is in the public interest, through aggregated reports or other appropriate formats designed to protect confidential information in accordance with paragraphs (4), (6), (8), and (9).” 20 This subparagraph permits the Bureau to disclose consumer complaint information in a non-aggregated format as long as the format is designed to protect confidential information in accordance with other specific provisions of § 1022(c). The Database would satisfy those criteria.

    20 12 U.S.C. 5512(c)(3)(B) (emphasis added).

    The disclosure of information contemplated by this policy is also consistent with subpart D of the Bureau's Final Rule on the Disclosure of Records and Information,21 which the Bureau promulgated pursuant to § 1022(c)(6). Commenters are correct to point out that subpart D generally restricts the authority of the Bureau to publicly disclose “confidential information,” including “confidential consumer complaint information.” 22 However, such disclosure restrictions only apply to the extent that consumer complaint information is confidential in nature. The Bureau's regulations define “confidential consumer complaint information” to mean “information received or generated by the [Bureau], pursuant to [sections 1013 and 1034 of the Dodd-Frank Act], that comprises or documents consumer complaints or inquiries concerning financial institutions or consumer financial products and services and responses thereto, to the extent that such information is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b) [FOIA].” 23 Because the information to be disclosed in the public database is disclosed with the consumer's express consent and not exempt from disclosure under FOIA, such information does not constitute “confidential consumer complaint information.” Accordingly, § 1022(c)(6)(A)'s grant of authority to issue rules regarding when the Bureau will treat information confidentially does not limit the Bureau's discretion to disclose information consistent with those rules, but provides further authority for the policy.

    21 12 CFR 1070.40 through 1070.47.

    22 12 CFR 1070.41 (prohibiting Bureau employees from disclosing confidential information other than as provided in subpart D); 12 CFR 1070.2 (defining “confidential information” to include “confidential consumer complaint information”).

    23 12 CFR 1070.2(g).

    Furthermore, the Bureau intends to obtain consent from consumers to publish their complaint narratives. Obtaining written consent for disclosure aligns with requirements of 1022(c)(8), FOIA, the Privacy Act, and the Bureau's confidentiality rules. The Bureau does not intend to release a narrative until the consumer expressly consents to publication and the Bureau has determined that the narrative has been de-identified according to a robust scrubbing standard.

    C. The Impact of the Disclosure of Consumer Complaint Narratives on Consumers

    Comments from consumer groups, open government groups, privacy groups, and individual commenters asserted that the publication of narratives would empower consumers to better understand the context of the data currently provided in the Consumer Complaint Database. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, on behalf of nine major news organizations and press trade associations, supported the publication of all narratives regardless of consent, stating that the Database is an invaluable resource for journalists as the experiences reflected in the narratives contribute to the public's understanding of the relationships between consumers and financial institutions and inform the ongoing democratic debate regarding financial regulation. Consumer groups added that consumer narratives would be a valuable resource for researchers to identify trends in the business practices of companies, particularly as they relate to traditionally underserved consumers.

    Some commenters noted that narratives would encourage companies to address the sources of common complaints. Consumer groups stated that the publication of narratives would allow companies to better compete through customer service, further increasing the improvement in customer care resulting from the introduction of the Database. Other consumer groups commented that narratives would aid consumer advocacy and legal aid groups in serving their communities by helping to identify local trends.

    Industry commenters, by contrast, asserted that the publication of narratives in the Database would mislead consumers because the data is, in the commenters' words, unverified and unrepresentative. And despite the fact that the Bureau confirms the existence of a commercial relationship before publishing complaints, multiple commenters expressed concern that complaints, and thus narratives, from individuals without a commercial relationship with the relevant company would appear in the Database.

    In general, the Bureau believes that greater transparency of information does tend to improve customer service and identify patterns in the treatment of consumers, leading to stronger compliance mechanisms and customer service. These have been features of the Consumer Complaint Database since its inception. In addition, disclosure of consumer narratives will provide companies with greater insight into issues and challenges occurring across their markets, which can supplement their own company-specific perspectives and lend more insight into appropriate practices. Other issues raised in the comments received by the Bureau are addressed below.

    1. Consumer Narratives a. Verification

    In its 2012 Notice of Final Policy Statement, the Bureau addressed several comments related to the disclosure of unverified consumer complaints. In response to the Proposed Policy Statement, several trade associations and companies continued to express concern, stating that unverified complaint narratives are likely to mislead consumers. Some trade associations suggested that the Bureau should only disclose narratives after a substantive investigation by the Bureau had been completed on that particular complaint. Some industry comments recommended distinguishing between unverified and verified complaints. Consumer groups and privacy groups, on the other hand, commented that the lack of verification presented minimal risk of misleading consumers.

    The Bureau incorporates its previous statements and analysis on this issue.24 The Bureau acknowledges that the Complaint System does not adjudicate the merits of each individual complaint disclosed in the Consumer Complaint Database, specifically stating on the Bureau's Web site that it does not “verify the accuracy of all facts alleged in complaints.” However, the Bureau does screen each complaint according to various criteria. The complaint is reviewed to determine whether it should be routed to another regulator. A determination is made whether each submission is a complaint, an inquiry, or feedback. Submissions in the latter two categories are not forwarded to the identified company for handling as complaints. Importantly, the commercial relationship between the company and the consumer is verified before disclosing it in the Database. The Bureau also verifies that the complaint is submitted by the identified consumer or by his or her specifically authorized representative before disclosure in the Database. Lastly, complaints are only forwarded to companies when they contain the required fields, including the complaint narrative, the consumer's requested resolution, and the consumer's contact information. The Bureau believes that with the information currently made public, supplemented by the contextual richness of the de-identified narratives, the public and the marketplace will have the capacity to assess all the data with the appropriate level of confidence.

    24 2012 Notice of Final Policy Statement, 77 FR at 37561 (June 22, 2012); 2013 Notice of Final Policy Statement, 78 FR at 21221 (April 10, 2013).

    b. Manipulation

    Several trade associations and companies commented that third parties like debt negotiation companies could use complaint submission as a strategic tool to unfairly aid their clients. A company commenter claimed that at least one outside party has been using the company's name unlawfully to defraud consumers, and that several complaints have been mistakenly lodged against the company as a result. Specifically, a third party was contacting consumers under the name of the other company to collect money and defraud consumers, and subsequently, several consumers lodged complaints against the other company.

    The Complaint System has a number of protections against manipulation. These protections were addressed in the 2012 Notice of Final Policy Statement.25 For example, while the process of submitting a complaint is designed to be user-friendly and straightforward, it does require deliberate action and a moderate time commitment by the consumer. According to the Bureau's own calculations, the average amount of time required to complete a complaint submission via the Web site is eight minutes. Consumers must also affirm to the government that the information they provide is true to the best of their knowledge and belief. Again, the commercial relationship between the consumer and company is confirmed by the company before any complaint data is disclosed in the Consumer Complaint Database. With regard to the example provided regarding fraudulent use of a company's identity: (1) Companies have the ability to alert the Bureau via an administrative response of any suspected fraud; (2) if properly identified by the company, such complaints do not appear in the Database; (3) if the Bureau finds any pattern of fraud by any entity within its jurisdiction, the Bureau can bring appropriate enforcement actions; and (4) in sending such complaints to the company, the Bureau is assisting company operations in quickly identifying and addressing instances of potential fraud.

    25 2012 Notice of Final Policy Statement, 77 FR at 37562 (June 22, 2012).

    c. Misidentification

    Several trade associations and companies commented that consumers' confusion about consumer financial products and services would lead to mistaken identification of the company against which the complaint is lodged. For example, one company commented that a consumer is likely to lodge a complaint against a credit reporting agency, when the consumer's complaint should be against the data furnisher. Trade associations and other commenters suggested the inclusion of company relationships. For example, one consumer group recommended including the parent company when that company has multiple subsidiaries against which complaints are lodged.

    As previously noted, companies have the ability to notify the Bureau if no commercial relationship exists between the consumer and the company; such complaints are not suitable for disclosure in the Consumer Complaint Database. Regarding the credit reporting example that was provided, the Bureau empowers the consumer to elect whom to submit a complaint against (dependent, as noted, on an existing commercial relationship). Specific to the suggestion regarding inter- and intra-company relationships, the Bureau is exploring expansion of the Database to include additional company relationship information.

    d. Positive Feedback

    Several trade associations and companies commented that the Consumer Complaint Database should include positive narratives about companies in conjunction with complaint narratives. One commenter suggested that if the Database is to function as a marketplace of ideas, then it should reflect the entire market and not solely consumers submitting complaints. Several trade associations stated that if the Database is to be likened to private web-based review sites, then positive feedback is necessary.

    Consistent with these comments, the Bureau believes that the Bureau should share data that provides an unbiased perspective on company behavior toward consumers. At present, the Bureau already collects and shares some elements of positive feedback regarding company complaint handling. For example, the Consumer Complaint Database currently discloses information that can be used to highlight positive company behavior, e.g., companies with timely responses or low consumer dispute rates. However, the Bureau intends to further explore ways in which positive company behavior may be highlighted. Concurrent with the Final Policy Statement, the Bureau is publishing a Request for Information to solicit and collect input from the public on the potential collection, identification, and sharing of data and feedback specific to positive interactions with providers of consumer financial products and services.

    e. Language Access

    Several consumer groups commended the accessibility of the Bureau's contact center, with translation available in over 180 languages. These groups requested that the Bureau make the online complaint submission form available in multiple languages.

    In addition to telephone support for non-English speaking consumers, the Bureau plans over time to make its online complaint intake form on consumerfinance.gov available in Spanish, and subsequently to explore making the form available in other languages as well. The Bureau is committed to providing persons with limited English proficiency meaningful access to its programs and services.

    f. Third Party Submissions and Referrals

    Several trade associations and companies raised concerns that narratives from third parties without authority to make a complaint on behalf of a consumer nevertheless would be published, and companies would be compelled to respond publicly. The Conference of State Bank Supervisors requested clarification on whether narratives within complaints referred from other government agencies would be disclosed.

    This Final Policy Statement does not apply to complaints submitted by any third parties or via agency referral, and the Bureau does not intend to disclose such narratives at this time. The Complaint System affords companies the opportunity to alert the Bureau if they are unable to verify the commercial relationship with the consumer who submitted the complaint before the complaint is disclosed in the Consumer Complaint Database.

    2. Company Responses

    In its Proposed Policy Statement, the Bureau stated that:

    Where the consumer provides consent to publish their narrative, the related company will be given the opportunity to submit a narrative response for inclusion in the Consumer Complaint Database. The company will be instructed not to provide direct identifying information in its public-facing response, and the Bureau will take reasonable steps to remove personal information from the response to minimize (but not eliminate) the risk of re-identification. The Company Portal will include a data field into which companies have the option to provide narrative text that would appear next to a consumer's narrative in the Consumer Complaint Database.26

    26 Disclosure of Consumer Complaint Narrative Data, 79 FR at 42768 (July 23, 2014).

    The Bureau received comments from companies and trade associations arguing that, because of business and legal considerations, they would be limited in their ability to provide meaningful public-facing unstructured narrative responses and that such responses would be impracticable or unhelpful. In response, the Bureau intends to adopt an alternative approach based on structured company responses, as discussed below.

    a. Quality of Company Responses

    Trade associations and companies both questioned the fairness of publicly disclosing consumer narratives because they argued that, under the Bureau's proposal, companies would be limited in their ability to provide public-facing unstructured narrative responses. Several companies, trade associations and individual commenters expressed concern that their ability to provide meaningful public-facing unstructured narrative responses would be limited by laws such as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Regulation P, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Regulation V, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Commenters argued that, under the Bureau's proposal to permit voluntary narrative company responses, they might not be able to provide any public-facing response at all due to legal, business, and reputational considerations. These commenters argued that frank responses may be viewed negatively by the public and companies would be discouraged from attempting to articulate individualized responses. They argued that, in practice, voluntary public-facing company responses would not provide the balance suggested in the Proposed Policy Statement. Some commenters suggested various ways the Bureau could mitigate these concerns, including providing specific interpretive guidance. Consumer groups stated that making consumer narratives and company responses public would allow for consumers to make individual determinations regarding the quality of the company's service.

    Responsive to company and trade association feedback, the Bureau acknowledges that unstructured company narratives may not effectively provide companies with a mechanism to balance a consumer's narrative. Therefore, the Bureau intends to provide companies with a finite list of optional structured responses from which they can choose. Within the secure web portal companies use to respond to complaints, the Bureau intends to add a set list of company responses, giving companies the ability to recommend a public-facing response addressing the substance of the consumer's complaint. Companies will be under no obligation to avail themselves of this opportunity. The Bureau plans to adopt company recommendations as a general matter, but it reserves discretion to assess whether there are good-faith bases for the recommendations. In addition, the Bureau plans to assess its review process over time. The Bureau plans for this functionality to apply to all consumer complaints disclosed via the Consumer Complaint Database (and not only those with consumer consent to disclose the associated narrative).

    Although this approach was not specifically proposed by commenters, the Bureau believes that it should eliminate or significantly mitigate the concerns, raised by companies, arising from the risk of public disclosure of protected confidential information. Companies that voluntarily decide to provide a public-facing response will not be put in a position of assessing what level of detail will address a complaint while protecting confidential information. The Bureau believes companies will be more likely to recommend public-facing structured responses than they would be to provide unstructured public-facing responses, and that the reputational risks of recommending structured responses will be lower. The Bureau also believes that this approach will lead to more standardized information that may facilitate the Bureau's other functions and goals with respect to the Consumer Complaint System, such as monitoring and reporting on complaints.

    Companies are ultimately responsible for ensuring their compliance with all legal requirements. The Bureau believes that its approach of making public-facing structured responses voluntary allows companies sufficient flexibility to assess legal, business, reputational, and other considerations relevant to the decision of whether to provide public-facing responses. Finally, while providing an opportunity for public-facing structured company responses offers significant benefits, the Bureau notes that the benefits of publicly disclosing unstructured consumer complaint narrative data, as explained in this Final Policy Statement, justify such disclosures, even absent an opportunity for public-facing company responses.

    b. Public and Private Company Responses

    The Bureau solicited feedback on whether any potentially public-facing company response should be distinct and in addition to the response companies currently send directly to the consumer. Several companies and trade associations commented that it should be distinct as the public response will have to be adapted to conform to applicable privacy laws. Several consumer groups and one company, on the other hand, commented that the same response, but in redacted form, should be publicly displayed in order to provide the public with the necessary context to interpret the data. Some trade associations commented that it would be operationally burdensome to create two separate responses.

    The Bureau plans to ensure that companies have the option to provide both a private (to-consumer) response and recommended public-facing structured (to be shared via the Database) response to a consumer's complaint. One of the principal benefits for consumers of the Bureau's complaint handling services is the requirement that companies respond to the consumer and the Bureau remains committed to keeping the focus on assisting consumers with their complaints. Based on data available in the Consumer Complaint Database, approximately 62% of complaints are “closed with explanation” and the majority of those (75%) are not disputed by the consumer. The Bureau is concerned that mandating that the to-consumer company responses be made public could have a chilling effect on well-received, detailed responses to consumers, potentially leading to higher consumer dispute rates. Based on comments received by companies on this issue, this concern would appear to be well founded. Allowing the company the choice to provide one very detailed private communication to its consumer, as well as a separate public-facing response, would address the Bureau's, companies' and consumers' interests on this issue.

    c. Response Time

    Currently, companies have 15 days to provide an initial response to a consumer complaint. Several trade associations and companies commented that the response time should be extended in order to accommodate the drafting of a separate, public-facing response. Some comments recommended extending the initial response time to as many as 60 days.

    The Bureau believes that the marginal increase in burden associated with voluntarily recommending a separate structured public response does not necessitate a deviation from the current complaint handling requirements, which themselves are designed to provide the complaining consumer with a timely response.

    d. Timing of Narrative and Response Posting

    Trade associations, consumer groups, and individual commenters supported the simultaneous posting of the consumer narrative and company response. One consumer group recommended posting the consumer narrative after 15 days, and posting the company's public response as it becomes available. Several commenters recommended 45 days; one company recommended 60 days. One commenter recommended publication after 35 days, to align generally with timing provided under the Fair Credit Reporting Act for consumer reporting agencies to reinvestigate and respond to consumer disputes.

    There are at least three timing options regarding the disclosure of the consumer narrative and company response: (1) Disclose the consumer narrative and company response (if available) when the company provides an initial response, but no later than 15 days after the complaint is routed to the company (the system currently in place for non-narrative complaint data), (2) disclose the consumer narrative and company response (if available) 15 days after the complaint is routed to the company, or (3) disclose the consumer narrative when the company provides its public-facing response, but no later than 60 days after the complaint is routed to the company. Under all three options, the complaint's structured closure responses would continue to follow the current disclosure timing (option number 1) and the consumer narrative would only be disclosed once it is scrubbed of personal information. However, only option three guarantees that a public-facing company response, to the extent one is provided within the 60-day period, would be disclosed contemporaneously with the consumer narrative.

    After careful consideration, therefore, the Bureau intends to adopt option number three. Option number one could force the company to choose between its desire to respond to and close complaints quickly versus its desire to provide an appropriate public facing response. Option number two may result in instances in which the company legitimately needs additional time, has appropriately communicated to the Bureau an “in progress” response (allowing for up to 60 days to respond), and yet the consumer narrative is made public on day 15 and possibly without an accompanying company response. Option three carries a similar risk to option number one, potentially creating the incentive for companies to delay providing an optional public-facing response for the full 60-day allowance (and thus delaying disclosure of the consumer narrative). However, erring on the side of fairness to companies by ensuring contemporaneous release, the Bureau plans to implement option three.

    3. Maintaining the Complaint Database a. Updates to Published Narratives

    Several consumer groups commented that consumers should be allowed to update narratives to inform the public of the status of the complaint. Some trade associations asked that consumers be provided the ability to remove their narratives if they are satisfied with the complaint resolution.

    Once given, at any point in the process, consumers will have the ability to withdraw their consent regarding publication of their narrative in the Consumer Complaint Database. At such time the consumer's narrative will be removed from the Database. However, data already downloaded by the public cannot be recalled by the Bureau. Based on the Bureau's experience to date reviewing consumer complaints, company responses, and ensuing resolutions, the Bureau believes that no additional back-and-forth functionality is necessary at this time.

    b. Removal of Old Narratives

    Several trade associations and one company commented that complaints and narratives should be removed from the database after a given step in the process or given amount of time, e.g., quarterly.

    The Bureau believes that consumers and the marketplace are capable of independently assessing the value of complaints based in part on when those complaints were submitted and therefore has no plans to remove complaints from the Consumer Complaint Database based on their age or status.

    c. Normalization

    Several trade associations and companies commented that the unstructured narrative data should be accompanied by information providing context to the company's profile, including how many transactions the company conducts per year, how many complaints are received, and how many complaints are satisfactorily resolved.

    The Bureau notes the general agreement by commenters that normalization would improve the quality of the data in the Consumer Complaint Database. As discussed in the Bureau's notices of its previous policy statements, data normalization is a complicated issue, and one that the Bureau is continuing to explore.27 The Bureau also notes that market participants, news organizations, and consumer groups can and have created normalized results.

    27 2012 Notice of Final Policy Statement, 77 FR at 37564 (June 22, 2012); 2013 Notice of Final Policy Statement, 78 FR at 21222 (April 10, 2013).

    d. Protected Group Information

    Several consumer groups requested the inclusion of protected group information, such as sex, ethnicity, race, age, disability, marital status, or national origin, on complaint submissions. These comments noted that it would be helpful to have this information to identify trends in companies' business practices.

    The Bureau agrees that the collection and public disclosure of protected group data has the potential to increase the quality of the dataset made available via the Consumer Complaint Database. However, there remain many open questions that the Bureau must first explore before moving forward on this suggestion, including the appropriateness of collecting protected group data, its representativeness, and the potential challenges with disclosing protected group data given the Bureau's sensitivity to re-identification risk.

    Furthermore, as discussed elsewhere, the Bureau's Database scrubbing standard would remove demographic information such as gender, age, and race, and ethnicity provided by consumers in the text of their narratives.

    D. Consumer Consent to Disclose Narratives 1. Opt-in Consumer Consent

    Trade associations, consumer groups, and individual commenters supported the proposed opt-in feature requiring a consumer's consent in order for narratives to be eligible for publication. A trade association representing news organizations asserted its view that narratives are subject to disclosure under FOIA regardless of consumer consent. Based on this viewpoint, it urged that at most the Bureau should permit consumers to opt-out of publication as opposed to having to opt-in. Commenters also generally agreed that consumers should maintain the right to revoke their consent at any time.

    A central tenet of the Bureau's work is to empower consumers; providing them with the option to opt-in (as opposed to requiring them to opt-out) and the right to withdraw their consent to publication of their narrative in the Consumer Complaint Database at any time advances that end.28 With respect to the comment about the application of the FOIA to narratives, the Chief FOIA Officer is authorized to grant or deny any request for a record of the CFPB, in accordance with the requirements of the FOIA and the Bureau's regulations. 12 CFR 1070.15. If the Bureau receives FOIA requests for records that are not published in the Consumer Complaint Database pursuant to this Final Policy Statement, the Chief FOIA Officer will determine whether to grant the request, or to deny it due to the applicability of FOIA exemptions.

    28 “Our Mission” http://www.consumerfinance.gov/strategic-plan/.

    2. Placement and Design of Consent

    Some commenters discussed the appearance of the opt-in form. Consumer groups requested that the opt-in be presented to the consumer early in the complaint process so that consumers can consider the implications as they draft their complaints. One company recommended providing the option to opt-in only once the consumer has received a response and has had the opportunity to consider the implications of publication. Some consumer groups recommended that, to encourage publication, the opt-in option be displayed prominently on the consent form. Additionally, some commenters requested that consumers have a distinct field on the form in which they can specify what personal information they want excluded from their narrative.

    The Bureau plans to place the opt-in consent at the submission phase of the complaint. The Bureau believes the decision whether or not to consent is most appropriate at the actual time of complaint submission. This decision is consistent with the practice of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which also obtains consent to disclose complaint narratives in its public-facing database.

    3. Elements of Informed Consent

    Some commenters recommended including disclaimers with the opt-in feature that notify consumers of what the commenters perceived to be a risk of defamatory speech. Some trade associations and companies commented that the Bureau should inform consumers of the risks of narrative publication, including the possibility of re-identification. Trade associations and companies generally commented that the consumer should be notified of the company response procedure and risks of consenting to publication. One press group commented that the consumer should be notified that his or her narrative is subject (in the commenter's view) to FOIA disclosure. One consumer group commented that consumers should be notified that consenting to publication may provide additional assistance to other consumers facing similar issues. The Bureau agrees that when a consumer is making the decision whether or not to opt-in, it is essential that the consumer have the information to weigh appropriately the risks of consenting to the disclosure of their de-identified narrative against individual and public benefits of doing so. In support of that goal, in addition to the consent language, the Bureau intends to provide clear, easily understandable material describing the scrubbing standard, methodology, and publication process, the remaining risk to privacy, and the possibility of re-identification. The Bureau is committed to continuously improving these materials over time to empower the consumer to make the most appropriate choice for his or her individual needs and circumstances.

    However, consumers do not waive any privacy interests they may have in the information merely by submitting it to the Bureau.29

    29 The Bureau emphasizes that the consent procedure described in the text for authorizing public disclosure of narratives may not be adequate to satisfy consent requirements under other statutes and regulations that the Bureau administers or enforces.

    E. Personal Information Scrubbing Standard and Methodology 1. Scrubbing Standard and Methodology

    The Bureau requested feedback on the standard and methodology it intends to utilize for scrubbing personal information in the narratives. This scrubbing standard would be applied comprehensively to all data shared via the Consumer Complaint Database. Consumer groups offered comments supporting the proposed use of modified Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) standards for scrubbing narratives. Some companies expressed concern that significant identifiers associated with major life events may remain, notwithstanding the scrubbing process. One company commented that scrubbing should be applied to all identifying information, including references to third parties. Another company noted the differences between health data and unstructured narratives, expressing concern that a HIPAA-based methodology would not be effective and that the Bureau has not provided sufficient detail on the scrubbing mechanism to be used. One privacy organization recommended that the Bureau scrub company responses.

    The Bureau's Database scrubbing standard is modeled after the HIPAA Safe Harbor Method, which is generally considered to represent a best practice for de-identifying data. In addition to adopting most of the specific HIPAA identifiers, the Bureau also plans to remove: (1) Demographic information such as gender, age, race, and ethnicity; (2) appropriate analogues to HIPAA identifiers in the consumer financial domain, e.g., credit card numbers; and (3) identifiers which the Bureau knows appear in complaints and could reasonably be used to identify individuals, e.g., references to third parties other than the company that is the subject of the complaint. The scrubbing methodology contemplates a computer-based automated step and a quality assurance step or steps performed by human reviewers.

    2. ZIP Codes

    The Bureau requested feedback on whether to disclose 5-digit ZIP codes alongside redacted narratives.30 By and large the responses that were received supported two options. The majority of commenters suggested the Bureau disclose 5-digit ZIP codes, except where population in the ZIP code contains fewer than 10,000 people. The second most cited option recommended disclosing full 5-digit ZIP codes, regardless of population. On the other extreme, one commenter suggested that ZIP codes should be excluded altogether, with state or county being used as the geographic identifier.

    30 Disclosure of Consumer Complaint Narrative Data, 79 FR at 42769 (July 23, 2014).

    While the Bureau acknowledges the unique value of detailed geographic data, it is also acutely aware of the heightened risk 5-digit ZIP codes can create for re-identification. Accordingly, the Bureau plans to disclose 5-digit ZIP codes, except where the population in the ZIP code contains fewer than 20,000 people. In such cases, the Bureau plans to disclose the 3-digit ZIP code, except where the 3-digit ZIP code population contains fewer than 20,000 people, in which case the Bureau does not intend to disclose any ZIP code data. While this approach represents a different approach than those suggested by most commenters, the Bureau believes that this option appropriately balances the utility of geographic data with the associated risk to individual consumer privacy. As with all elements of its scrubbing standard, the Bureau intends to make adjustments in the future guided by the goal of simultaneously maximizing data utility and individual privacy.

    3. Re-identification

    Several trade associations and companies commented that despite the proposed scrubbing methodology, an unacceptably high risk of re-identification will remain. Some commented that in areas with small populations, even scrubbed narratives could lead to re-identification based on other details not covered by HIPAA standards. One company also commented that the risk of narrative content being repeated through social media raises the possibility of re-identification by individuals familiar with the consumer. Consumer and privacy groups commented that the risk of re-identification is minimal, and offset by the benefits of the policy and rigor of the scrubbing standard.

    As the Bureau stated in the Proposed Policy Statement, sharing data containing any personal information presents a tension between data utility and individual privacy. As a particular personal information scrubbing standard becomes more or less stringent, the utility of a given de-identified dataset may become respectively less or more useful. The publication of narratives involves risks, including the potential harm associated with the re-identification of actual consumers within the Consumer Complaint Database. The Bureau believes that it is appropriate to publish only those narratives for which opt-in informed consumer consent has been obtained, that have also been subjected to scrubbing under a robust personal information scrubbing standard and methodology.

    F. Impact of Narrative Publication on Companies and the Marketplace 1. Reputational Harm

    Trade associations commented that the public disclosure of unverified narratives would result in reputational harm to companies. Some comments argued that any perceived benefit to consumers through narrative publication would be outweighed by the reputational harm suffered by companies.

    The Bureau takes seriously company and trade association concerns that financial institutions could incur intangible reputational damage as a result of the disclosure of narratives. As stated in previous policy statements, to a large extent, this risk is inherent in any release of complaint data. In deciding to release the structured complaint data, the Bureau considered this concern and concluded that, while there is always a risk that market participants will draw erroneous conclusions from available data, the marketplace of ideas would on the whole be able to determine what the data show and their relative importance. The Bureau believes this to be equally true with respect to narratives, and that consumer narrative publication will in fact make it easier for the marketplace to evaluate the rest of the complaint data by providing more information and context. Likewise, the Bureau also believes that the option for companies to provide public-facing structured responses will enhance the effectiveness of the Database and provide an opportunity for companies to enhance their reputation and mitigate potential concerns.

    Consistent with these comments, the Bureau believes that the Database should include data that provides an unbiased perspective on company behavior toward consumers. Accordingly, in parallel to the finalization of the instant Final Policy Statement, the Bureau intends to further explore ways in which positive company behavior may be highlighted. Concurrent with the Final Policy Statement, the Bureau is publishing a Request for Information to solicit and collect input from the public on the potential collection, identification, and sharing of data and feedback specific to positive interactions with providers of consumer financial products and services.

    2. Effect on Consumer Relations

    Several companies, trade associations, and a public interest organization commented that publicly posting narratives could create disincentives for consumers to deal directly with companies to resolve their disputes. Some commenters requested that narratives only be posted after the consumer has directly contacted the company. A few trade associations commented that narrative publication would cause general harm to customer relations by making the process more adversarial.

    The data collected from the Bureau's credit card intake form and survey work shows that the vast majority of consumers have already attempted, often several times, to resolve the complained-about issue with the company before seeking assistance from the Bureau. As previously stated, a central element of the Bureau's mission is to empower consumers; the Bureau believes that requiring consumers to contact the company before engaging the Bureau would work against that goal. Such an additional procedural hurdle may also discourage some number of consumers from submitting complaints, which would have the effect of depriving the Bureau of the information underlying the complaint. This could serve to undermine Bureau functions that rely, at least in part, on complaint data to inform their respective activities.

    Similarly the Bureau is skeptical of concerns that disclosing narratives would create disincentives for consumers to deal directly with the company and would cause general harm to customer relations by making the process more adversarial. Feedback the Bureau has received suggests the introduction of the Consumer Complaint Database and the Bureau's activities generally have caused greater investment by companies in their customer service operations, which includes company complaint handling. The Bureau views this development as a positive step for customer service at companies that are making such investments.

    3. The Appearance of Validating Complaints by the Act of Disclosing Them

    Several trade associations, companies, and individual commenters stated that by including unverified comments on a government Web site, the narratives will be portrayed as being validated by the Bureau.

    Similar concerns were previously raised and addressed by the Bureau in the 2012 Notice of Final Policy Statement.31 The Bureau acknowledged the possibility that some consumers may (or may be led to) draw erroneous conclusions from the data. That is true, however, for any market data. In recognition of this risk the Bureau provides the following disclaimer on the Consumer Complaint Database: “We don't verify all the facts alleged in these complaints but we take steps to confirm a commercial relationship between the consumer and company. Complaints are listed here after the company responds or after they have had the complaint for 15 calendar days, whichever comes first. We remove complaints if they don't meet all of the publication criteria. Data is refreshed nightly.” The Bureau believes this disclaimer to be sufficient to address the risk identified by commenters.

    31 2012 Notice of Final Policy Statement, 77 FR at 37562 (June 22, 2012).

    As discussed elsewhere, it is noteworthy that several other government agencies make consumer complaint narratives available, including the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, and, pursuant to FOIA requests, the Federal Trade Commission.

    4. Consumer Confusion and Lack of Context

    Several trade associations commented that unstructured narrative data provides minimal benefit to consumers as required scrubbing would remove any useful information from the narrative and responses. Some trade association comments added that the Bureau's resources would be better utilized by providing more context for data already provided in the Database. Some consumer groups requested better organization of the data provided in the Database.

    As noted previously, sharing data containing personal information presents a tension between data utility and individual privacy. The Bureau believes, based on the comments received from various consumer and privacy groups, that it is possible to strike a balance between these two important interests and still disclose a dataset that provides significant benefit to the marketplace. The Bureau will continually monitor this balance for opportunities to adjust its personal information scrubbing standard, which the Bureau intends to describe on its Web site. Furthermore, the Bureau is committed to the continuous improvement of the Consumer Complaint Database, which includes the addition of increasing levels of context, organization, and data normalization.

    5. Increased Litigation

    A few companies and trade associations commented that the publication of narratives would lead to increased litigation, either through potentially “defamatory” narratives posted by consumers or as a result of additional information available to prospective plaintiffs. One company expressed the concern that complaints and narratives could be sources of information appropriately left to be obtained during the discovery process. One trade association also commented that the privacy risks of published narratives could increase the risk of legal liability and heighten litigation costs. One legal aid organization commented that the availability of complaint narratives would help consumer advocacy groups to identify local trends of unlawful behavior and target legal efforts more effectively.

    The Bureau believes the risk of increased litigation following the disclosure of narratives to be low. The closest analogs to the Bureau's plan for narrative disclosure are the Consumer Product Safety Commission's public-facing complaint database and the Federal Trade Commission's disclosures pursuant to FOIA requests; the Bureau is not aware of any information that those disclosures have increased litigation against companies. Ultimately, the Bureau believes there is significant value in making available Bureau complaint data to help in the identification of and calling attention to potentially unlawful behavior.

    6. Increased Company Costs

    Several trade associations and companies commented that the additional procedure of creating a second, public-facing response, and ensuring its compliance with potentially applicable laws, would increase operational costs for companies. Some of these commenters also emphasized the increased costs to the Bureau resulting from additional infrastructure necessary to publish narratives. One public interest group also highlighted the financial burden of producing additional responses to narratives.

    As noted above, and in light of the comments received, the Bureau intends to provide companies with a finite list of optional structured responses that will allow them to recommend to the Bureau an optional public response to address the substance of consumers' complaints. The Bureau believes that this approach significantly decreases the operational costs of providing independent public-facing responses, as compared to the Bureau's proposal of providing separate narrative responses. Still, the Bureau acknowledges that additional effort and expense may be borne by companies in connection with preparing public-facing responses to consumer narratives. The Bureau has weighed these factors, in addition to the increased burdens on the Bureau's own complaint handling operation. The Bureau considers it a matter of fairness to provide companies with the opportunity to address publicly consumer complaints from the company's perspective. It is important to recognize that no company will be required to recommend a public-facing response, and it is entirely up to the company whether it wants to take advantage of this forum. The Bureau does not believe that the additional burden a company may bear in taking advantage of this opportunity, particularly given the Bureau's movement to structured responses and away from unstructured narrative company responses, outweighs the benefit of publicly disclosing narratives to consumers and the marketplace.

    7. Confidentiality Agreements

    One individual commented that the public posting of consumer narratives would create an incentive for companies to require consumers to sign non-disclosure agreements when creating an account. This commenter recounted an experience in which he submitted a complaint to the Bureau and when settling the matter with the company, the company asked him to sign a confidentiality agreement.

    The Bureau's experience to date has not uncovered widespread company use of non-disclosure agreements in connection with the Consumer Complaint Database, and no company comments on the proposed Policy have indicated that companies intend to utilize non-disclosure agreements as gag orders in the way envisioned by this comment. The Bureau's market monitoring will remain alert to developments along these lines. However, the Bureau would likely look disfavorably upon agreements that require a consumer to withdraw his or her consent to have a narrative published as a condition of settlement.

    IV. Implementing the Final Policy Statement

    Following publication of the Final Policy Statement, the Bureau will turn to implementation of the policy. The Bureau intends to modify its Web site and online complaint intake form to collect informed opt-in consumer consent. In conjunction with the collection of consumer consent, the Bureau intends to finalize and post on its Web site the Consumer Complaint Database scrubbing standard. The Bureau will also modify the company web portal to add functionality to allow companies to provide the recommended public-facing responses, reach out to companies on the company web portal to offer training and provide technical support related to the policy. The Bureau will finalize its automated and manual review processes and then begin scrubbing narratives.

    The Bureau will not disclose any scrubbed and consented-to narratives until sufficient time has elapsed to allow the Bureau to adequately complete and assess the above actions.

    V. Final Policy Statement

    The Bureau hears directly from the American public about their experiences with the nation's consumer financial marketplace. An important element of the Bureau's mission is the handling of individual consumer complaints regarding consumer financial products and services.

    In June 2012, the Bureau began making de-identified individual-level complaint data available via its web-based, public-facing database (the “Consumer Complaint Database”). Since launch, the Consumer Complaint Database has been expanded to include additional consumer financial products and data fields as products have been added to its complaint handling system. Consistent with its strategic vision, the Bureau is committed to the continued growth and refinement of the Consumer Complaint Database in a manner that helps inform consumers and the marketplace while still protecting privacy and incorporating appropriate security controls.

    A. Consumer Narratives

    The Bureau plans to provide consumers who submit their complaints directly to the Bureau the opportunity to share their individual stories with other consumers and the marketplace by including consumer complaint narratives in the Consumer Complaint Database where consent for publication is first obtained from the consumer. Only those narratives for which opt-in consumer consent is obtained and a robust personal information scrubbing standard and methodology is applied will be eligible for disclosure.

    B. Consumer Consent To Disclose Narratives

    The Bureau intends to disclose only narratives for which informed consent has been obtained and that have been scrubbed for personal information. To obtain informed consumer consent, the Bureau plans to give consumers who submit a complaint the opportunity to check a consent box, with accompanying language that will state, among other things, and in plain language, that: (1) Whether or not consent is given will not otherwise impact how the Bureau handles the complaint; (2) if given, the consumer may thereafter inform the Bureau that the consumer withdraws consent at any time and the narrative will be removed from the Consumer Complaint Database; and (3) the Bureau will take reasonable steps to remove personal information from the complaint to address risk of re-identification.

    C. Personal Information Scrubbing Standard and Methodology

    Sharing data containing personal information presents a tension between data utility and individual privacy. As a particular personal information scrubbing standard becomes more or less stringent, the utility of a given de-identified dataset may become respectively less or more useful.

    Within its judgment and discretion, and in order to address the risk of re-identification, the Bureau intends to apply to all publicly-disclosed narratives a robust personal information scrubbing standard and methodology. In designing its scrubbing standard, the Bureau relied heavily on guidance by the Department of Health and Human Services regarding de-identification of health data, as outlined in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) Privacy Rule.32 The Bureau's current scrubbing standard is modeled after the HIPAA Safe Harbor Method, which is generally considered to represent a best practice for de-identifying data. In addition to adopting (and removing) most of the specific HIPAA identifiers, the Bureau also plans to remove: (1) Demographic information such as gender, age, race, and ethnicity; (2) appropriate analogues to HIPAA identifiers in the consumer financial domain, e.g., credit card numbers; and (3) identifiers which the Bureau knows appear in complaints and could reasonably be used to identify individuals, e.g., personal information pertaining to third parties other than the company that is the subject of the complaint. All consumer complaint data shared via the Consumer Complaint Database will be subject to this standard and methodology, including, e.g., ZIP code. The Bureau plans to make this scrubbing standard available on the Bureau's Web site. The scrubbing methodology contemplates a computer-based automated step and a quality assurance step or steps performed by human reviewers.

    32 45 CFR 164.514.

    D. Company Response

    The Bureau plans to give companies the opportunity to respond publicly to the substance of the consumer complaints they receive from the Bureau. Within the secure web portal companies use to respond to complaints, the Bureau intends to add a set list of structured company response options; a responding company will be given an opportunity to recommend to the Bureau which option, if any, it would like included as a public-facing response to address the substance of the consumer's complaint. Companies will be under no obligation to avail themselves of this opportunity.

    E. Continuous Improvement

    The Bureau plans to implement a testing and continuous improvement process to ensure that as applied, the Bureau's standard and methodology for scrubbing personal information adequately protects consumers. The Bureau intends to continue to adjust its scrubbing standard and methodology, guided by the goal of simultaneously maximizing data utility and individual privacy.

    VI. Effect of Policy Statement

    This Policy Statement is intended to provide information regarding the Bureau's plans to exercise its discretion to publicly disclose certain data derived from consumer complaints. The Policy Statement does not impose any legal obligations on third parties, nor does it create or confer any substantive or procedural rights on third parties that could be enforceable in any administrative or civil proceeding.

    Dated: March 12, 2015. Richard Cordray, Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06722 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No. CFPB-2015-0013] Request for Information Regarding the Consumer Complaint Database AGENCY:

    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (the “Bureau”) is issuing a Notice and Request for Information (“RFI”) to solicit and collect input from the public on the potential collection and sharing of consumer compliments about providers of consumer financial products and services and more information about a company's complaint handling.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit responsive information and other comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2015-0013, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    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: The Bureau encourages the early submission of comments. All submissions must include the document title and docket number. 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 submissions, 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. Submissions will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For submission process questions please contact Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive Secretary, at (202) 435-7275. For inquires related to the substance of this request, please contact Scott Pluta, at (202) 435-7306.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 5511(c).

    Background: The Bureau, established under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank Act”), hears directly from the American public about their experiences with the nation's consumer financial marketplace. An important element of the Bureau's mission is the handling of individual consumer complaints regarding consumer financial products and services. In June 2012, the Bureau began making certain de-identified individual-level complaint data available via its Web-based, public facing database (the “Consumer Complaint Database”). Since launch, the Consumer Complaint Database has been expanded multiple times to include additional consumer financial products and data fields. Concurrent with this RFI, the Bureau is publishing a final policy statement to provide guidance on how the Bureau plans to exercise its discretion to disclose publicly unstructured consumer complaint narrative data via the Consumer Complaint Database. As part of the public comment process associated with that policy, several trade associations and companies commented that the Consumer Complaint Database should include positive feedback in conjunction with complaint narratives. One commenter suggested that if the Database is to function as a marketplace of ideas, then it should reflect the entire market and not solely consumers submitting complaints. Several trade associations stated that if the database is to be likened to private Web-based review sites, then positive feedback is necessary.

    Current Bureau Operations: The Bureau currently collects and shares some positive feedback regarding company complaint handling. For example, the public Consumer Complaint Database currently shares information that can be used to highlight a company's positive complaint handling relative to its peers, e.g., whether company responses are timely or disputed by the consumer.

    Positive Consumer Feedback: Broadly speaking, the Bureau conceives of two potential avenues for sharing positive consumer feedback about companies: (1) By providing more information about a company's complaint handling, and (2) by collecting and providing consumer compliments (independent of the complaint process). Each will be discussed in turn.

    1. Company Complaint Handling

    In 2014, the Bureau sent approximately 156,600 consumer complaints to companies for response. In 2013 and 2012, that figure was 113,200 and 75,400, respectively. When a company receives a complaint from the Bureau, it has 15 calendar days for its initial response and up to 60 calendar days to provide a final response. The company reviews the information, communicates with the consumer as needed, and determines what action to take in response. Once the company responds, the Bureau alerts the consumer and invites him or her to review the response and provide feedback.

    The data shared via the Consumer Complaint Database can reveal positive company behavior. The purposes of publishing the Consumer Complaint Database include providing consumers with timely and understandable information about consumer financial products and services, and improving the functioning, transparency, and efficiency of markets for such products and services. Consumer complaints are a natural part of doing business. Therefore, it is not the existence of a routine complaint, by itself, that draws the attention of the market, but instead it is factors such as the number of complaints relative to comparable companies, how a company handles its complaints, the patterns and categories that identify and show the frequency of certain complaints, and perhaps the occasional notable fact pattern. The Bureau believes there are opportunities to highlight positive company behavior within at least the first two of these characteristics—relative volume and quality of response to the consumer. With this RFI, the Bureau is specifically interested in responses that identify potential ways the Bureau could record, calculate, standardize, sort, share, and visualize the data associated with the consumer complaints the Bureau sends to companies in ways that reveal positive company behavior. The following represents a non-exhaustive list of potential metrics that the Bureau could share on its Web site:

    i. Total number of complaints, by product and issue.

    ii. Normalized number of complaints by company, by product and issue.

    iii. Company Final Responses. Controlling for other variables, e.g., product and issue, comparison of how companies choose to close complaints.

    iv. Timeliness and speed:

    a. Average time between complaint receipt and initial/final response.

    b. Frequency of exceeding either the 15 or 60 day allowance.

    v. Consumer Sentiment Analysis. Refers to the use of automated textual analysis to identify and extract subjective information in source materials, e.g., classifying the various complaint narratives fields across a spectrum of emotional states.

    The Bureau also seeks comment on a potential adjustment of the consumer “dispute” function. Under one potential scenario, the dispute function would be replaced with a two-part consumer feedback process. The consumer would have the ability to rate the company's handling of his or her complaint on a one to five scale of satisfaction and provide a description in support of the rating. Positive feedback about the company's handling of the consumer's complaint would be reflected by both high satisfaction scores and by the narrative in support of the score. The Bureau would consider whether and how these data elements could be disclosed to the public.

    The Bureau is also seeking input on the most effective and user-friendly ways to make the above data available to the public. The ability to download the raw data may be an option. Other options may include comparison tools, dashboards, and visualizations. Lastly, the Bureau could release tables listing, e.g., the “Top Ten” (and bottom) companies across some number of the above metrics. The Bureau is interested in hearing not only whether the public believes these to be good ideas, but mechanically how they could work. The following represents some of the issues to be considered:

    • Timing. How often should the lists be updated, e.g., daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly?

    • Normalization. Should the lists include normalized results or just those metrics that do not require normalization, e.g., time from receipt to final company response?

    • Size Threshold. Should there be a minimum complaint volume threshold to be included on the list?

    • Metrics. Which metric should be subject to listing, e.g., volume of normalized complaints, types of resolutions, consumer satisfaction/dispute rates, consumer sentiment?

    2. Compliments

    Outside of the Bureau's current complaint handling operation, another possible avenue for highlighting positive company behavior would be to solicit, collect, and share consumer compliments. This could entail a new submission type, channel, and process for the Bureau as well as a new database to list such compliments. The Bureau is seeking input from the public on this idea generally, as well as focused comments across the following elements:

    a. Channel

    The Bureau maintains a feature on its Web site called Tell Your Story, which gives consumers the opportunity to share their experiences with consumer financial products and services. These submissions are reviewed by CFPB staff and help the Bureau understand current issues in the financial marketplace. This channel could operate as-is and instances of consumer compliments could be shared with the public (with the appropriate consumer consent). Alternatively, Tell Your Story could be altered to solicit consumer compliments more directly. Or a new channel could be launched that is specifically designed to intake only consumer compliments. The Bureau requests public comment on the possibility of expanding the Tell Your Story channel, and/or specific suggestions for alternate channels to facilitate positive feedback.

    b. Operations

    As detailed previously, consumer complaints follow a specific process path, from the consumer to the Bureau to the company and back to the consumer. If the Bureau established a new database to intake and publish consumer compliments, should the same process apply? How should the Bureau confirm that a commercial relationship exists between the consumer submitting the compliment and the company? Specifically, should consumer compliments be sent to the relevant company for the company to confirm that a commercial relationship exists between the consumer and the company? Are there any other operational considerations that would benefit the public that the Bureau should consider when designing, developing, and implementing a system for collecting consumer compliments?

    c. Disclosure

    The Consumer Complaint Database does not disclose every complaint the Bureau receives. Examples of complaints that are withheld from disclosure include complaints where the commercial relationship could not be confirmed, complaints that are referred to other regulators, complaints where the information is incomplete, complaints involving ongoing litigation with the company, and anonymous complaints. As with complaints, the Bureau would have to determine (1) what elements of a consumer compliment to disclose publicly, and (2) which compliments should be excluded from disclosure, and (3) how scrubbing and consent should be applied. The Bureau is seeking input from the public on these questions.

    Creative and Innovative Solutions. The above framework for considering positive company feedback should be considered as just that, a framework. The Bureau is seeking innovative and creative input on the idea of highlighting positive consumer experiences and company performance. Therefore, while the above provides some focus for this solicitation, the Bureau is hopeful that it will receive a number of innovative ideas that it can evaluate and potentially implement.

    Dated: March 12, 2015. Richard Cordray, Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06707 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2015-OS-0023] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    United States European Command, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to add a new system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States European Command proposes to add a new system of records, AEUCOM 01, entitled “United States European Command (USEUCOM) Security Clearance Database” in its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. This system will be used to verify current access for personnel assigned to or visiting USEUCOM. It will also be used as an electronic request manager for scheduling Sensitive Compartmented Information indoctrinations, issuing badges, requesting access to spaces, and processing clearance certifications for visitors to USEUCOM or for USEUCOM personnel visiting other organizations.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before April 23, 2015. This proposed action will be effective the day following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by dock number and title, by any of the following methods:

    • Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    • Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive East Tower, 2nd Floor, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Mayra Lazala-Stock, USEUCOM FOIA/PA Support Specialist, USEUCOM, Unit 30400, APO AE 09131-0400, telephone: 011-49-711-680-7161.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States European Command notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov.

    The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, were submitted on January 27, 2015, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

    Dated: March 19, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. AEUCOM 01 System name:

    United States European Command (USEUCOM) Security Clearance Database

    System location:

    ECJ6 HQ USEUCOM, Patch Barracks Stuttgart, Unit 30400, APO, AE 09131-0400, Germany

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    U.S. Department of Defense Active Duty, Reserve, National Guard, Civilian personnel and NATO partner nation personnel, U.S. Government civilian employees from all executive departments, government contractor employees and consultants, and other civilian personnel who require access to classified information or to spaces accredited for such information at Headquarters USEUCOM or subordinate commands.

    Categories of records in the system:

    Subject affiliation with USEUCOM (visitor, contractor, permanent, etc.); level of security clearance; level of access; full name; Department of Defense ID number, Social Security Number (SSN) or foreign ID; service or agency that the subject is affiliated with; company; contract number; arrival and departure dates; information about visit; permanent certifications; indoctrination assistance requests executed between USEUCOM and other organization Special Security Officers or Security Managers; date and place of birth; citizenship status; USEUCOM directorate and division affiliation including office phone number; records of current background investigation including type, adjudication date, and adjudicating authority; dates of nondisclosure agreements, statements, attestations, and other oaths that have been executed; U.S. collateral, Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), and NATO access levels granted by USEUCOM with applicable dates; records of USEUCOM issued security badges and building access requests with approvals; and other security related items of interest to include dates for polygraphs and security awareness training.

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    50 U.S.C. 401, Congressional declaration of purpose; 50 U.S.C. 435, Procedures; DoD 5200.2-R, Department of Defense Personnel Security Program Regulation; DoD Manual 5105.21 Volume 1, Sensitive Compartmented Information Administrative Security Manual; E.O. 10450, Security Requirements for Government Employment; E.O. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry; E.O. 12333, United States Intelligence Activities; E.O. 12829, National Industrial Security Program; E.O. 12968, Access to Classified Information; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.

    Purpose(s):

    The primary use of the system will be to verify current access for personnel assigned to or visiting USEUCOM. It will also be used as an electronic request manager for scheduling SCI Indoctrinations, issuing badges, requesting access to spaces, and processing clearance certifications both for visitors to USEUCOM or for USEUCOM personnel visiting other organizations.

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the DoD compilation of system of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD blanket routine uses can be found online at: http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNsIndex/BlanketRoutineUses.aspx.

    Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage:

    Electronic storage media.

    Retrievability:

    Information is retrieved by name, SSN or foreign ID, rank, service, directorate, or the current access level of security clearance.

    Safeguards:

    Electronically and optically stored records are maintained in a Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) system with password-protected access. Within SIPRNET, the database requires an additional log in. Records are accessible only to authorized persons with a valid need-to-know, who are appropriately screened, investigated, determined eligible for access, and who have been assigned to ECJ2-Special Security Office (SSO) or appointed as a Security Manager or Special Security Representative in writing. Additionally, access to the SSO Database is based on a user's specific functions, security eligibility and access level.

    Retention and disposal:

    Records are destroyed in accordance with the JCSM 5760.01 Vol. II, 10 March 2003, disposition instructions for file number 0300-02: destroy/delete after 3 years.

    System manager(s) and address:

    IT Services Manager, HQ USEUCOM ECJ6, Unit 30400, APO AE 09131-0400.

    Notification procedure:

    Individuals seeking to determine whether information about them is contained in this system should address written inquiries to Headquarters, U.S. European Command, Attn: ECJ2-SSO, Unit 30400, APO AE 09131-0400.

    Individuals should provide their full name (and any alias and/or alternate names used), SSN or foreign ID, and date and place of birth.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”

    Attorneys or other persons acting on behalf of an individual must provide written authorization from that individual for their representative to act on their behalf.

    Record access procedures:

    Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to Headquarters, U.S. European Command, Attn: ECJ2-SSO, Unit 30400, APO AE 09131-0400.

    Individuals should provide their full name (and any alias and/or alternate names used), SSN or foreign ID, and date and place of birth.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”

    Attorneys or other persons acting on behalf of an individual must provide written authorization from that individual for their representative to act on their behalf.

    Contesting record procedures:

    The USEUCOM rules for accessing records, for contesting and appealing initial agency determinations may be obtained from the system manager.

    Record source categories:

    Information contained in this system is derived from the Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS); Scattered Castles Database; the Office of Personnel Management's Electronic Questionnaire Investigation Portal (eQIP); records maintained by the DoD adjudicative agencies; and records maintained by security managers, special security officers, or other officials requesting and/or sponsoring the security eligibility determination for the individual.

    Exemptions claimed for the system:

    None.

    [FR Doc. 2015-06665 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force Notice of Intent To Grant a Partially Exclusive Patent License AGENCY:

    Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the provisions of Part 404 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, which implements Public Law 96-517, as amended; the Department of the Air Force announces its intention to grant NBD Nanotechnologies, Inc. a corporation of the State of Delaware, having a place of business at 8 St. Mary's Street, Room 611, Boston, MA 02215.

    DATES:

    The Air Force intends to grant a license for the patent and pending applications unless a written objection is received within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of publication of this Notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written objection should be sent to: Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Rm. 101, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Rm. 101, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A partially exclusive license (exclusive with respect to the fields of footwear and circuit boards) in any right, title, and interest of the Air Force in: U.S. Application No. 13/624,151, entitled, “SYNTHESIS OF FUNCTIONAL FLUORINATED POLYHEDRAL OLIGOMERIC SILSESQUIOXANE,” by Timothy S. Haddad et al., filed on 21 September 2012, published as U.S. Application Publication No. 2013/0072609, and claiming benefit of and priority to U.S. Provisional Application 61/537,122, filed 21 September 2011; and U.S. Application No. 14/013,600, entitled, “CONTROLLED POLYMERIZATION OF FUNCTIONAL FLUORINATED POLYHEDRAL OLIGOMERIC SILSESQUIOXANE MONOMERS,” by Sean M. Ramirez et al., and filed on 29 August 2013.

    Henry Williams, Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06683 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery; Meeting Notice AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery (ACANC). The meeting is open to the public. For more information about the Committee, please visit http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/AboutUs/FocusAreas.aspx.

    DATES:

    The Committee will meet from 9:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m. on March 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Women in Military Service for America Memorial, Conference Room, Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, VA 22211.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Renea C. Yates; Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the Committee, in writing at Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington VA 22211, or by email at [email protected], or by phone at 703-614-1248.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (U.S.C. 552b, as amended) and 41 Code of the Federal Regulations (CFR 102-3.150). Due to difficulties beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer (DFO), the DFO was unable to approve the Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery's meeting agenda for the scheduled meeting of March 26, 2015, to ensure compliance with the requirements of 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery is an independent Federal advisory committee chartered to provide the Secretary of the Army independent advice and recommendations on Arlington National Cemetery, including, but not limited to, cemetery administration, the erection of memorials at the cemetery, and master planning for the cemetery. The Secretary of the Army may act on the Committee's advice and recommendations.

    Proposed Agenda: The Committee will receive updates on major construction and expansion projects, sustainment planning and visitor enhancements. Additionally, the Committee will review a specific request for placement of a commemorative monument at Arlington National Cemetery to commemorate Vietnam Helicopter Pilots in accordance with the requirements of title 38 United States Code section 2409.

    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first-come basis. The Women in Military Service for America is readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. For additional information about public access procedures, contact Ms. Renea Yates, the Committee's Designated Federal Officer, at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Written Comments and Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the Committee, in response to the stated agenda of the open meeting or in regard to the Committee's mission in general. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Ms. Renea Yates, the Committee's Designated Federal Officer, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Each page of the comment or statement must include the author's name, title or affiliation, address, and daytime phone number. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at least seven business days prior to the meeting to be considered by the Committee. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submitted written comments or statements with the Committee Chairperson, and ensure the comments are provided to all members of the Committee before the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the Committee until its next meeting. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the Committee is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the Committee during the meeting. Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the Committee meeting only at the time and in the manner described below. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least three (3) days in advance to the Committee's Designated Federal Official, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the addresses listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Designated Federal Official will log each request, in the order received, and in consultation with the Committee Chair determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the Committee's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 15-minute period near the end of meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described above, will be allotted no more than three (3) minutes during this period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the Designated Federal Official.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06610 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0031] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Formula Grant EASIE Annual Performance Report AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), 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 new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 26, 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-0031 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 2E115, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kimberly Smith, 202-453-6459.

    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: Formula Grant EASIE Annual Performance Report.

    OMB Control Number: 1810-NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,300.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 20,800.

    Abstract: The purpose of Indian Education Formula Grant to Local Agencies, as authorized under title VII, part A, subpart 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended sections 7111-7119, 20 U.S.C. 7421-7429 is to assist applicants to provide Indian students with the opportunity to meet the same challenging state standards as all other students and meet the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students. The Indian Education Formula Grant (CFDA 84.060A) is not competitive or discretionary and requires the annual submission of the application from either a local education agency (LEA) and/or tribe. The amount of the award for each applicant is determined by a formula based on the reported number of American Indian/Alaska Native students identified in the application, the state per pupil expenditure, and the total appropriation available. The 524B Annual Performance Report (APR) was designed for discretionary grants, however the title VII program is a formula grant program. Therefore, the EASIE APR goes beyond the generic 524B APR and facilitates the collection of more specific and comprehensive data due to grantees entering project specific data into an online database. This will allow for a comparison of LEAs across objectives. By entering information into the EASIE APR database, data will be able to be generated quickly and uniformly to facilitate data collection, as required under 34 CFR 75.720, and 2 CFR part 200.301. This APR will improve the quality of data collected that can be used for evaluation and to help make policy decisions, reduce burden on the grantees, and allow ED to inform Congress on the outcomes of this grant program.

    Dated: March 16, 2015. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06379 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No. ED-2015-ICCD-0033] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Transition to Teaching Survey AGENCY:

    Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 26, 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-0033 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 Tyra Stewart, 202-260-1847.

    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: Transition to Teaching Survey.

    OMB Control Number: 1855-0018.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 144.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 42.

    Abstract: This is a request for approval to collect information from Transition to Teaching (TTT) grantees that will be used to describe the extent to which local education agencies that received TTT grant funds have met the goals relating to teacher recruitment and retention described in their application. TTT grantees are funded for a period of five years. Currently, grantees are required by statute to submit an interim project evaluation to the Department of Education (ED) at the end of the third project year and a final project evaluation at the project's end. In turn, the TTT program is required to prepare and submit to the Secretary and to Congress interim and final program evaluations containing the results of these grantee project evaluation reports. An analysis of these reports has provided some data on grantee activities, prior to the usage of the TTT survey, missing or incomplete data made it difficult to aggregate data across grantees in order to accurately describe to Congress the extent of program implementation. This data collection allows ED to gather data on a common set of indicators across grantees in order to describe and improve program implementation with the end goal of improving program performance.

    Dated: March 18, 2015. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06625 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM98-1-000] Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.

    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.

    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).

    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Docket No. File date Presenter or
  • requester
  • Prohibited: 1. CP07-52-0001 3-2-15 Robert Godfrey Exempt: 1. P-349-173 2-12-15 FERC Staff 2 2. CP14-96-000 3-3-15 Hon. Sandra R. Galef 3. CP13-483-000 3-9-15 Hon. Earl Blumenauer 4. CP14-347-000 3-9-15 Hon. David Vitter 5. CP15-93-000 PF14-14-000 3-11-15 Henry Roth 6. P-2179-043 3-13-15 Hon. Jim Costa 1 Email record under Docket Nos. CP07-52-000, CP07-53-000, CP07-53-001, and PF14-19-000. 2 Phone record.
    Dated: March 17, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06587 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR15-26-000.

    Applicants: Enterprise Texas Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Submits tariff filing per 284.123(b)(2) + (g): 2015 Petition for Rate Approval to be effective 3/13/2015; Filing Type: 1310.

    Filed Date: 3/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150313-5032.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/3/15.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: PR15-29-000.

    Applicants: ONEOK Gas Transportation, L.L.C.

    Description: Submits tariff filing per 284.123(b)(1) + (g): Petition for Authorization of Firm 311 Service to be effective 6/1/2015; Filing Type: 1300.

    Filed Date: 3/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150313-5173.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/3/15.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-459-000.

    Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.501: 2014 Penalty Revenue Crediting Reporting.

    Filed Date: 3/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20150316-5202.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-649-000.

    Applicants: Southeast Supply Header, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: SESH Backhaul Contracts to be effective 5/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20150316-5091.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-650-000.

    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: 20150401 System Maps to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20150316-5104.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-651-000.

    Applicants: OkTex Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Update Contact Information on Tariff's Title Sheet to be effective 4/16/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20150316-5106.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-652-000.

    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Part II System Map Compliance Filing to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20150316-5107.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-653-000.

    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: 2015 Maps Compliance to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20150316-5114.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/15.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-523-001.

    Applicants: Sabine Pipe Line LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 154.205(b): Sabine Annual LUAF and Fuel Filing Amendment to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150317-5029.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/15.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 17, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06586 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meeting related to the transmission planning activities of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Electric System Planning Working Group Meeting March 20, 2015, 10:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/services/planning/index.jsp.

    The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Electric System Planning Working Group Meeting April 7, 2015, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/services/planning/index.jsp.

    The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Business Issues Committee Meeting April 15, 2015, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/committees/meeting_materials/index.jsp?com=bic.

    The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Operating Committee Meeting April 16, 2015, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/committees/meeting_materials/index.jsp?com=oc.

    The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Electric System Planning Working Group Meeting April 22, 2015, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/services/planning/index.jsp.

    The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Management Committee Meeting April 29, 2015, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/committees/meeting_materials/index.jsp?com=mc.

    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:

    Docket Nos. ER13-102, ER13-1942, ER13-1946, New York Independent System Operator, Inc. and New York Transmission Owners Docket No. ER13-1926, PJM Transmission Owners Docket No. ER13-1947, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER13-1957, ISO New England Inc. Docket No. ER13-1960, ISO New England Inc., Participating Transmission Owners Administrative Committee, and New England Power Pool Participants Committee

    For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8622 or [email protected]

    Dated: March 17, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06631 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CD15-20-000] Nevada Irrigation District; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene

    On March 4, 2015, the Nevada Irrigation District filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed Loma Rica Hydroelectric Station In-Conduit Hydroelectric Project would have an installed capacity of 1,440 kilowatts (kW) and would be located on the existing Banner-Cascade Pipeline System, which transports water for agricultural and municipal consumption. The project would be located near the Town of Grass Valley in Nevada County, California.

    Applicant Contact: Gary King, Engineering Manager, Nevada Irrigation District, 1036 West Main Street, Grass Valley, CA 95945-5424, Phone No. (530) 273-6185.

    FERC Contact: Robert Bell, Phone No. (202) 502-6062, email: [email protected]

    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed project would consist of: (1) A proposed 105-foot-long, 36-inch-diameter pipe that connects to a proposed 30-foot-long, 24-inch-diameter pipe that delivers water to the powerhouse; (2) a proposed 1,000-square-foot powerhouse that contains one turbine-generator unit with a total installed capacity of 1,440 kW; (3) an existing flow-split structure that distributes water to either the Loma Rica Water Treatment Plant or the Elizabeth George Water Treatment Plant; (4) a proposed 50-foot-long, 60-inch-diameter bypass pipe to the existing Loma Rica Flow Control Facility for use when the proposed project is not in operation; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an estimated annual generating capacity of 3,980 megawatt-hours.

    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

    Table 1—Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Statutory Provision Description Satisfies
  • (Y/N)
  • FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended by HREA The conduit the facility uses is a tunnel, canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar manmade water conveyance that is operated for the distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption and not primarily for the generation of electricity Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as amended by HREA The facility is constructed, operated, or maintained for the generation of electric power and uses for such generation only the hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned conduit Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended by HREA The facility has an installed capacity that does not exceed 5 megawatts Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as amended by HREA On or before August 9, 2013, the facility is not licensed, or exempted from the licensing requirements of Part I of the FPA Y

    Preliminary Determination: Based upon the above criteria, Commission staff preliminarily determines that the proposal satisfies the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, which is not required to be licensed or exempted from licensing.

    Comments and Motions to Intervene: Deadline for filing comments contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.

    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the “COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” as applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through 385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.1 All comments contesting Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.

    1 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2014).

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number (e.g., CD15-20-000) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected] For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 17, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06628 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-879-001.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 2446R1 Substitute Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska NITSA and NOA to be effective 12/1/2014.

    Filed Date: 3/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150317-5068.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1026-001.

    Applicants: Utah Red Hills Renewable Park, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Amendment to Application for Market-Based Authorization to be effective 5/1/2015 under ER15-1026 Filing Type: 120.

    Filed Date: 3/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150313-5179.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1295-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Queue No. Z2-014; Service Agreement No. 2971 to be effective 2/13/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20150316-5210.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1296-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Amended IFA and Distribution Service Agmt Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company to be effective 3/17/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150317-5001.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1304-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2994 KMEA/Sunflower Facilities Construction Agreement to be effective 2/20/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150317-5030.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1305-000.

    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): AECC Bates Tap Delivery Point Agreement to be effective 2/23/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150317-5048.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1306-000.

    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): AECC Barite Road Tap Delivery Point Agreement to be effective 2/26/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150317-5050.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1307-000.

    Applicants: AEP Texas Central Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): TCC-La Paloma Energy Center IA First Amend & Restated to be effective 2/26/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150317-5055.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES15-13-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 204 Application of Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Filed Date: 3/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150317-5140.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 17, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06598 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 12635-002; Project No. 12152-000] Moriah Hydro Corporation; Notice of Pre-Filing Activities in Another Docket

    Take notice that some pre-filing activities related to the preparation of the license application for the Mineville Energy Storage Project (P-12635-002) were undertaken in docket number P-12152-000. Documents pertaining to that proceeding are available in the Commission's eLibrary under docket number P-12152.

    For further information, please contact John Mudre at (202) 502-8902.

    Dated: March 17, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06632 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14581-000] Turlock Irrigation District, Modesto Irrigation District, La Grange Hydroelectric Project; Notice of Dispute Resolution Panel Meeting and Technical Conference

    On March 16, 2015, Commission staff, in response to the filing of a notice of study dispute by the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service on February 23, 2015, convened a single three-person Dispute Resolution Panel (Panel) pursuant to 18 CFR 5.14(d).

    The Panel will hold a technical conference at the time and place identified below. The technical conference will address the study dispute regarding potential effects of the La Grange Project (P-14581) on the genetic makeup of steelhead/rainbow trout in the Tuolumne River. As directed by the Commission's letter issued on February 27, 2015, the panel will not consider the study dispute on Tuolumne River habitats for anadromous fish.

    The purpose of the technical session is for the disputing agency, applicant, and Commission to provide the Panel with additional information necessary to evaluate the disputed studies. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to attend the meeting as observers. The Panel may also request information or clarification on written submissions as necessary to understand the matters in dispute. The Panel will limit all input that it receives to the specific studies or information in dispute and will focus on the applicability of such studies or information to the study criteria stipulated in 18 CFR 5.9(b). If the number of participants wishing to speak creates time constraints, the Panel may, at its discretion, limit the speaking time for each participant.

    For more information, please contact Nicholas Ettema, the Dispute Resolution Panel Chair, at [email protected] or 202-502-6565.

    Technical Conference Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 Time: 9:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. (PDT) Place: Holiday Inn Sacramento—Capitol Plaza, 300 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 Dated: March 17, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06633 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL15-31-002] PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Compliance Filing

    Take notice that on February 25, 2015, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submitted a compliance filing, pursuant to the Commission's January 16, 2015 Order,1 to be effective 4/1/2015.

    1PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 150 FERC ¶ 61,020 (2015).

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time March 24, 2015.

    Dated: March 17, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06629 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL15-53-000] California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On March 16, 2015, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL15-53-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation to determine the justness and reasonableness of the Energy Imbalance Market provisions in the California Independent System Operator Corporation's existing tariff related to the imbalance energy price spikes in PacifiCorp's balancing authority areas. California Independent System Operator Corporation, 150 FERC ¶ 61,191 (2015).

    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL15-53-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be 90 days from the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Dated: March 17, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06630 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP15-109-000; PF14-16-000] Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on March 6, 2015, Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gulf), filed an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's Regulations, for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, own, and operate two natural gas pipeline segments totaling approximately 34 miles and compression facilities located in Jefferson Davis, Cameron, and Calcasieu Parishes, Louisiana (Cameron Access Project). The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Tyler R. Brown, Senior Counsel, Columbia Gulf Transmission Company, 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2400, Houston, TX 77056. Telephone (713) 386-3797 and email: [email protected].

    Columbia Gulf proposes to construct approximately 6.8 miles of 30-inch diameter natural gas pipeline loop designated West Lateral (WL) 400 Loop in Jefferson Parish, approximately 27.3 miles of 36-ich diameter natural gas pipeline segment (WL 400) in Jefferson Davis, Cameron, and Calcasieu Parishes, and appurtenant facilities. Columbia Gulf also proposes to construct a new 12,260 horsepower compressor station (Lake Arthur Compressor Station) in Jefferson Davis Parish. The proposed project is in response to new market demands and required alterations in the direction of gas flow. The Cameron Access Project will create additional incremental capacity of up to 800 MMcf/day. Columbia Gulf has entered into binding precedent agreements with shippers providing the transportation of up to 700 MMcf/day of natural gas. Columbia Gulf proposes to charge a negotiated incremental rate for firm transportation service using the proposed project. The cost of the project is $309.9 million. Columbia Gulf proposes an in-service date of December, 2017.

    On July 17, 2014, the Commission staff granted Columbia Gulf's request to use the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF14-16-000 to staff activities involving the proposed facilities. Now, as of the filing of this application on March 6, 2015, the NEPA Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP15-109-000, as noted in the caption of this Notice.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 5 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.

    Comment Date: April 7, 2015.

    Dated: March 17, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06634 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14635-000, Project No. 7155-000] Village of Gouverneur; Notice of Docket Number for Original License Proceeding

    Take notice that the docket number for the original license proceeding for the Gouverneur Hydroelectric Project is P-14635. Several documents regarding this proceeding were filed under P-7155, which is an older and closed proceeding for this site. The docket numbers for these documents were changed in the Commission's eLibrary to the correct docket number, P-14635. All future filings regarding the original license proceeding for the Gouverneur Hydroelectric Project should use docket number P-14635.

    For further information, please contact Jody Callihan at (202) 502-8278.

    Dated: March 17, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06635 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0202; FRL-9925-05-OAR] Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Recordkeeping and Reporting Related to E15 (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Recordkeeping and Reporting Related to E15 (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2408.03, OMB Control No. 2060-0675) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. 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.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0202, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Geanetta Heard, Fuels Compliance Center, (6405A) Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9017; fax number: (202) 343-2800; email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) 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. 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. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA granted partial waivers that allow gasoline containing greater than 10 volume percent (vol%) ethanol up to 15 vol% ethanol (E15) to be introduced into commerce for use in model year (MY) 2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles, subject to certain conditions. EPA issued final rule establishing several measures to mitigate misfueling of other vehicles, engines and equipment with E15 and the potential emissions consequences of misfueling. The rule prohibits the use of gasoline containing more than 10 vol% ethanol in vehicles, engines and equipment that are not covered by the partial waiver decisions. The rule also requires all E15 gasoline fuel dispensers to have a specific label when a retail station or wholesale-purchaser consumer chooses to sell E15. In addition, the rule requires that product transfer documents (PTDs) specifying ethanol content and Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) accompany the transfer of gasoline blended with ethanol, and a survey of retail stations to ensure compliance with these requirements. The rule also modifies the Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) program by updating the Complex Model to allow fuel manufacturers to certify batches of gasoline containing up to 15 vol% ethanol. This ICR supporting statement addresses associated recordkeeping and reporting items.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 80).

    Estimated number of respondents: 2,103 (total).

    Frequency of response: On occasion.

    Total estimated burden: 13,270 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $1,340,292. $0 in annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in estimates: We expect there will be a decrease in the total estimated respondents, responses and cost to the industry compared to the ICR currently approved by OMB. This change in burden is due to no longer requiring the programing of product transfer codes in this collection. The respondent universe decreased from 6,211 to 2,103, a difference of 4,108 members. The number of responses declined from 44,010,211 to 44,000,103, a difference of 10,108 reports. This reduced the industry burden hours from 37,350 to 13,270. A contributing factor to the lowering of the industry cost was the salaries quoted in the “Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2013 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, mean wages.” The salaries that assisted in calculating the cost mix had slightly declined. This change has caused a decrease in the cost per report in this collection from $110 per report to $101 per report. The total estimated cost to industry is $1,340,292 a year, the difference of $2,762,234 calculated from the prior collection approved by OMB.

    Dated: March 16, 2015. Byron Bunker, Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06769 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL 9923-95-OSWER] Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Supplemental Funding for Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Grantees AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of the availability of funds.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to make available approximately $5.8 million to provide supplemental funds to Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) capitalization grants previously awarded competitively under section 104(k)(3) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund pilots awarded under section 104(d)(1) of CERCLA that have not transitioned to section 104(k)(3) grants are not eligible to apply for these funds. EPA will consider awarding supplemental funding only to RLF grantees who have demonstrated an ability to deliver programmatic results by making at least one loan or subgrant. The award of these funds is based on the criteria described at CERCLA 104(k)(4)(A)(ii).

    The Agency is now accepting requests for supplemental funding from RLF grantees. Requests for funding must be submitted to the appropriate EPA Regional Brownfields Coordinator (listed below) by April 23, 2015. Funding requests for hazardous substances and/or petroleum funding will be accepted. Specific information on submitting a request for RLF supplemental funding is described below and additional information may be obtained by contacting the EPA Regional Brownfields Coordinator.

    DATES:

    This action is effective on March 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    A request for supplemental funding must be in the form of a letter addressed to the appropriate Regional Brownfields Coordinator (see listing below) with a copy to Lisa Ruhl, [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa Ruhl, U.S. EPA, (202) 566-0180 or the appropriate Brownfields Regional Coordinator.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act added section 104(k) to CERCLA to authorize federal financial assistance for brownfields revitalization, including grants for assessment, cleanup and job training. Section 104(k) includes a provision for EPA to, among other things, award grants to eligible entities to capitalize Revolving Loan Funds and to provide loans and subgrants for brownfields cleanup. Section 104(k)(4)(A)(ii) authorizes EPA to make additional grant funds available to RLF grantees for any year after the year for which the initial grant is made (noncompetitive RLF supplemental funding) taking into consideration:

    (I) The number of sites and number of communities that are addressed by the revolving loan fund;

    (II) the demand for funding by eligible entities that have not previously received a grant under this subsection;

    (III) the demonstrated ability of the eligible entity to use the revolving loan fund to enhance remediation and provide funds on a continuing basis; and

    (IV) such other similar factors as the [Agency] considers appropriate to carry out this subsection.

    Eligibility:

    In order to be considered for supplemental funding, grantees must demonstrate that they have expended existing funds and that they have a clear plan for quickly expending requested additional funds. Grantees must demonstrate that they have made at least one loan or subgrant prior to applying for this supplemental funding and have significantly depleted existing available funds. For FY2015, EPA defines “significantly depleted funds” as any grant where $400,000 or less remains uncommitted. Additionally, the RLF recipient must have demonstrated a need for supplemental funding based on, among other factors, the number of sites that will be addressed; demonstrated the ability to make loans and subgrants for cleanups that can be started and completed expeditiously (i.e., “shovel-ready” projects) and will lead to redevelopment; demonstrated the existence of additional leveraged funds to complete the project in a timely manner and move quickly from cleanup to redevelopment, including the use of tax incentives such as new market tax credits, direct funding or other resources to advance the project to completion; demonstrated the ability to administer and revolve the capitalization funding in the RLF grant; demonstrated an ability to use the RLF grant to address funding gaps for cleanup; and demonstrated that they have provided a community benefit from past and potential loan(s) and/or subgrant(s). Special consideration may be given to those communities affected by plant closures or other economic disruptions; can demonstrate projects that have a clear prospect of aiding the in-sourcing of manufacturing capacity and keeping and/or adding jobs, or otherwise creating jobs, in the affected area; or will benefit a community that has been identified as part of EPA's Cross Agency Strategy on Working to Make a Visible Difference in Communities. EPA encourages innovative approaches to maximizing revolving and leveraging with other funds, including use of grants funds as a loan loss guarantee, combining with other government or private sector lending resources. Applicants for supplemental funding must contact the appropriate Regional Brownfields Coordinator below to obtain information on the format for supplemental funding applications for their region. When requesting supplemental funding, applicants must specify whether they are seeking funding for sites contaminated by hazardous substances or petroleum. Applicants may request both types of funding.

    Regional Contacts Region States Address/phone number/email EPA Region 1, Frank Gardner, [email protected] CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT 5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA 02109-3912, Phone (617) 918-1278; Fax (617) 918-1291. EPA Region 2, Lya Theodoratos, [email protected] NJ, NY, PR, VI 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10007, Phone (212) 637-3260; Fax (212) 637-3083. EPA Region 3, Tom Stolle, [email protected] DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code 3HS51, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, Phone (215) 814-3129; Fax (215) 814-5518. EPA Region 4, Wanda Jennings, [email protected] AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., 10TH FL , Atlanta, GA 30303-8960, Phone (404) 562-8682; Fax (404) 562-8439. EPA Region 5, Keary Cragan, [email protected] IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Mail Code SE-4J, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3507, Phone (312) 353-5669; Fax (312) 886-7190. EPA Region 6, Mary Kemp, [email protected] AR, LA, NM, OK, TX 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 (6SF-PB), Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, Phone (214) 665-8358; Fax (214) 665-6660. EPA Region 7, Susan Klein, [email protected] IA, KS, MO, NE 11201 Renner Blvd, Lenexa, Kansas 66219, Phone (913) 551-7786; Fax (913) 551-8688. EPA Region 8, Dan Heffernan, [email protected] CO,MT, ND, SD, UT, WY 1595 Wynkoop Street (EPR-B), Denver, CO 80202-1129, Phone (303) 312-7074; Fax (303) 312-6065. EPA Region 9, Noemi Emeric-Ford, [email protected] AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU 75 Hawthorne Street, WST-8, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone (213) 244-1821; Fax (415) 972-3364. EPA Region 10, Susan Morales, [email protected] AK, ID, OR, WA 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Mailstop: ECL-112 Seattle, WA 98101, Phone (206) 553-7299; Fax (206) 553-0124. Dated: February 12, 2015. David R. Lloyd, Director, Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
    [FR Doc. 2015-05296 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0207; FRL-9925-09-OAR] Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Cellulosic Production Volume Projections and Efficient Producer Reporting AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Cellulosic Production Volume Projections and Efficient Producer Reporting” (EPA ICR No. 2517.01, OMB Control No. 2060-NEW) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a request for approval of a new collection. 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.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0207, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], Attention Air and Radiation Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0207, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jon Monger, Policy Advisor, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mail Code: 6401A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-0628; fax number: 202-564-1177; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) 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. 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. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: EPA is seeking to collect information from potential cellulosic biofuel producers to aid in determining the annual volume standards. This ICR includes a questionnaire form to facilitate the collection of this information. EPA would also like to use a data form to collect information from certain ethanol producers and importers who have requested and been approved to use an “efficient producer” pathway. This data form would standardize collection of selected data points and allow better and more efficient compliance with the RFS program. We inform respondents that they may assert claims of business confidentiality (CBI) for information they submit in accordance with 40 CFR 2.203.

    Forms: RFS Efficient Producer Data Form, RFS Cellulosic Biofuel Producer Questionnaire Form.

    Respondents/affected entities: Producers, Importers of Renewable Fuels.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: RFS Cellulosic Biofuel Producer Questionnaire Form is voluntary; RFS Efficient Producer Data Form is mandatory pursuant to Sections 114 and 208 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7414 and 7542.

    Estimated number of respondents: 80 (total).

    Frequency of response: Annually (RFS Cellulosic Biofuel Producer Questionnaire Form) or quarterly (RFS Efficient Producer Data Form).

    Total estimated burden: 560 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $63,840 (per year).

    Changes in estimates: There is no previous ICR for this collection.

    Dated: March 17, 2015. Karl Simon, Director, Transportation and Climate Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06770 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0130; FRL-9923-73] FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    There will be a 3-day meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) to consider and review research to evaluate the potential for juvenile sensitivity to pyrethroids.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on May 19-21, 2015, from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Comments. The Agency encourages written comments be submitted on or before May 5, 2015, and requests for oral comments be submitted on or before May 12, 2015. However, written comments and requests to make oral comments may be submitted until the date of the meeting, but anyone submitting written comments after May 5, 2015, should contact the Designated Federal Official (DFO) listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. For additional instructions, see Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    Nominations. Nominations of candidates to serve as ad hoc members of FIFRA SAP for this meeting should be provided on or before April 7, 2015.

    Webcast. This meeting may be webcast. Please refer to the FIFRA SAP Web site at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap for information on how to access the webcast. Please note that the webcast is a supplementary public process provided only for convenience. If difficulties arise resulting in webcasting outages, the meeting will continue as planned.

    Special accommodations. For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, and to request accommodation of a disability, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting: The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection Agency, Conference Center, Lobby Level, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202.

    Comments. Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0130, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    Nominations, requests to present oral comments, and requests for special accommodations. Submit nominations to serve as ad hoc members of FIFRA SAP, requests for special accommodations, or requests to present oral comments to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Jenkins, DFO, Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-3327; 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. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and FIFRA. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. If your comments contain any information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to obtain special instructions before submitting your comments.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    C. How may I participate in this meeting?

    You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0130 in the subject line on the first page of your request.

    1. Written comments. The Agency encourages written comments be submitted, using the instructions in ADDRESSES and Unit I.B., on or before May 5, 2015, to provide FIFRA SAP the time necessary to consider and review the written comments. Written comments are accepted until the date of the meeting, but anyone submitting written comments after May 5, 2015, should contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Anyone submitting written comments at the meeting should bring 30 copies for distribution to FIFRA SAP.

    2. Oral comments. The Agency encourages each individual or group wishing to make brief oral comments to FIFRA SAP submit their request to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on or before May 12, 2015, in order to be included on the meeting agenda. Requests to present oral comments will be accepted until the date of the meeting and, to the extent that time permits, the Chair of FIFRA SAP may permit the presentation of oral comments at the meeting by interested persons who have not previously requested time. The request should identify the name of the individual making the presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will represent, and any requirements for audiovisual equipment. Oral comments given before the FIFRA SAP are limited to approximately 5 minutes unless prior arrangements have been made. In addition, each speaker should bring 20 copies of his or her comments and presentation for distribution to FIFRA SAP at the meeting.

    3. Seating at the meeting. Seating at the meeting will be open and on a first-come basis.

    4. Request for nominations to serve as ad hoc members of FIFRA SAP for this meeting. As part of a broader process for developing a pool of candidates for each meeting, FIFRA SAP staff routinely solicits the stakeholder community for nominations of prospective candidates for service as ad hoc members of FIFRA SAP. Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals to be considered as prospective candidates for a specific meeting. Individuals nominated for this meeting should have expertise in one or more of the following areas: In vitro to in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE), Risk assessment, Toxicokinetics, Quantitative modeling and analyses of complex data, Pyrethroid pesticides, Age-dependent pharmacokinetics and metabolism, Enzyme maturation profiles in rodents and humans, Voltage-gated sodium channels, Ontogeny of metabolizing enzymes (e.g., carboxylesterase and P450), Clinical observations of neurotoxicology in animals (adult and neonate). Nominees should be scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable of providing expert comments on the scientific issues for this meeting. Nominees should be identified by name, occupation, position, address, email address, and telephone number. Nominations should be provided to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on or before April 7, 2015. The Agency will consider all nominations of prospective candidates for this meeting that are received on or before that date. However, final selection of ad hoc members for this meeting is a discretionary function of the Agency.

    The selection of scientists to serve on FIFRA SAP is based on the function of the Panel and the expertise needed to address the Agency's charge to the Panel. No interested scientists shall be ineligible to serve by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to a Federal department or agency or their employment by a Federal department or agency, except EPA. Other factors considered during the selection process include availability of the potential Panel member to fully participate in the Panel's reviews, absence of any conflicts of interest or appearance of lack of impartiality, independence with respect to the matters under review, and lack of bias. Although financial conflicts of interest, the appearance of lack of impartiality, lack of independence, and bias may result in disqualification, the absence of such concerns does not assure that a candidate will be selected to serve on FIFRA SAP. Numerous qualified candidates are identified for each Panel. Therefore, selection decisions involve carefully weighing a number of factors including the candidates' areas of expertise and professional qualifications and achieving an overall balance of different scientific perspectives on the Panel. In order to have the collective breadth of experience needed to address the Agency's charge for this meeting, the Agency anticipates selecting approximately 10 ad hoc scientists.

    FIFRA SAP members are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634-Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, Qualified Trusts, and Certificates of Divestiture, as supplemented by EPA in 5 CFR part 6401. In anticipation of this requirement, prospective candidates for service on FIFRA SAP will be asked to submit confidential financial information which shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the candidate's employment, stocks, and bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. EPA will evaluate the candidates financial disclosure form to assess whether there are financial conflicts of interest, appearance of a lack of impartiality, or any prior involvement with the development of the documents under consideration (including previous scientific peer review) before the candidate is considered further for service on FIFRA SAP. Those who are selected from the pool of prospective candidates will be asked to attend the public meetings and to participate in the discussion of key issues and assumptions at these meetings. In addition, they will be asked to review and to help finalize the meeting minutes. The list of FIFRA SAP members participating at this meeting will be posted on the FIFRA SAP Web site at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap or may be obtained from the OPP Docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    II. Background A. Purpose of FIFRA SAP

    FIFRA SAP serves as the primary scientific peer review mechanism of EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) and is structured to provide scientific advice, information and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-related issues as to the impact of regulatory actions on health and the environment. FIFRA SAP is a Federal advisory committee established in 1975 under FIFRA that operates in accordance with requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix). FIFRA SAP is composed of a permanent panel consisting of seven members who are appointed by the EPA Administrator from nominees provided by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. FIFRA established a Science Review Board (SRB) consisting of at least 60 scientists who are available to FIFRA SAP on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews conducted by FIFRA SAP. As a scientific peer review mechanism, FIFRA SAP provides comments, evaluations, and recommendations to improve the effectiveness and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists. Members of FIFRA SAP are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to provide expert advice and recommendation to the Agency.

    B. Public Meeting

    The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizes EPA to register pesticides and the FFDCA gives the agency the authority to establish tolerances for residues resulting on food and/or feed resulting from use of a pesticide. The studies required to allow the agency to make the appropriate statutory safety findings under both of these acts are stipulated under 40 CFR part 158. There is flexibility, however, in implementing Part 158. Additional data can be required (§ 158.75), alternative approaches can be accepted, and studies can be waived (§ 158.45). The 2007 National Research Council (NRC) report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century describes this new vision for toxicity testing. In response to the NRC report, EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) developed a Strategic Direction for New Pesticide Testing and Assessment Approaches http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/testing-assessment.html which describes OPP's approach to implementing the NAS vision. One of the key components of OPP's Strategic Direction is improved approaches to more traditional toxicity tests to minimize the number of animals used while expanding the amount of information obtained. OPP also has a recent document, Guiding Principles for Data Requirements (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/data-require-guide-principle.pdf) which describes the principles for requiring toxicology data for pesticides, specifically to “only require data that adequately inform regulatory decision making and thereby avoid unnecessary use of time and resources, data generation costs, and animal testing.”

    OPP is actively working on a reevaluation of the human health effects of the pyrethroids and pyrethrins under the OPP registration review program (http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/index.htm), required under FIFRA.

    Until late 2009, OPP requested developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) studies for pyrethroids. However, the agency determined that the DNT studies were not providing adequate data to evaluate the potential for post-natal sensitivity to pyrethroids. In July, 2010, the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) reviewed a proposed research strategy to assess the potential for juvenile sensitivity consistent with the recommendations of the NAS in its report on Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century using a combination of in vitro studies, targeted in vivo studies, and physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models.

    Based on feedback from the SAP and the agency, the industry research proposal was revised. Since late 2010, the Council for the Advancement of Pyrethroid Human Health Risk Assessment (CAPHRA) has worked with industry and academic scientists to develop assays and models to assess the potential for juvenile post-natal sensitivity to pyrethroids. The on-going research effort is organized around the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for pyrethroids: Alterations with voltage-gated sodium channels (VGSC), leading to alterations in membrane excitability and firing potentials and ultimately to in vivo clinical syndromes. Specifically, the CAPHRA is evaluating the potency of pyrethroids to human sodium channels and transplantation of adult and juvenile rat synaptic membrane into oocytes. In addition, the CAPHRA is conducting targeted in vivo studies on behavioral metrics and developing PBPK models. The research, thus far, has focused on development of the overall approach using data for deltamethrin and permethrin (Type II and Type I pyrethroids, respectively). The CAPHRA research is at a point where feedback on extending this research to the other pyrethroids would be constructive. The CAPHRA proposal is to use the knowledge gained with deltamethrin and permethrin to develop more targeted datasets using read across and computational approaches (i.e., less data generation) for other pyrethroids. As such, the agency will be seeking the SAP's advice on the current state of the science with the CAPHRA research effort and proposals for next steps which include extension of data on deltamethrin and permethrin to other pyrethroids.

    C. FIFRA SAP Documents and Meeting Minutes

    EPA's background paper, related supporting materials, charge/questions to FIFRA SAP, FIFRA SAP composition (i.e., members and ad hoc members for this meeting), and the meeting agenda will be available by approximately 4 weeks before the meeting. In addition, the Agency may provide additional background documents as the materials become available. You may obtain electronic copies of these documents, and certain other related documents that might be available at http://www.regulations.gov and the FIFRA SAP Web site at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap.

    FIFRA SAP will prepare meeting minutes summarizing its recommendations to the Agency approximately 90 days after the meeting. The meeting minutes will be posted on the FIFRA SAP Web site or may be obtained from the OPP Docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.

    Dated: March 13, 2015. David J. Dix, Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06689 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0042; FRL-9923-15-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Lime Manufacturing (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NSPS for Lime Manufacturing (40 CFR part 60, subpart HH) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1167.11, OMB Control No. 2060-0063) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through May 31, 2015. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (79 FR 30117) on May 27, 2014 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. 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.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0042, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: 40 CFR part 60, subpart HH applies to each rotary lime kiln used in the manufacture of lime. Owners or operators of affected facilities must conduct initial performance tests and continuously monitor opacity or the appropriate control device operating parameters. They must comply with an opacity standard and a moss particulate standard. Sources are also required to submit semiannual reports.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Lime manufacturing facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart HH).

    Estimated number of respondents: 41 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and semiannually.

    Total estimated burden: 3,772 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $440,817 (per year), includes $61,500 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the labor hours in this ICR compared to the previous ICR.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06667 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9925-01-Region 9] Casmalia Resources Superfund Site; Notice of Proposed CERCLA Administrative De Minimis Settlement AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA) and section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of a proposed administrative de minimis settlement concerning the Casmalia Resources Superfund Site in Santa Barbara County, California (the Casmalia Resources Site). Section 122(g) of CERCLA provides EPA with the authority to enter into administrative de minimis settlements. This settlement is intended to resolve the liabilities of the 337 settling parties identified below for the Casmalia Resources Site under sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA and section 7003 of RCRA. These parties have also elected to resolve their liability for response costs and potential natural resource damage claims by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These 337 parties sent 15,558,106 lbs. of waste to the Casmalia Resources Site, which represents 0.0028 (0.28%) of the total Site waste of 5.6 billion pounds. This settlement requires these parties to pay over $1.4 million to EPA.

    DATES:

    EPA will receive written comments relating to the settlement until April 23, 2015. EPA will consider all comments it receives during this period, and may modify or withdraw consent to the settlement if any comments disclose facts or considerations indicating that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

    Public Meeting: In accordance with section 7003(d) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6973(d), commenters may request an opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area. The deadline for requesting a public meeting is April 7, 2015. Requests for a public meeting may be made by contacting Russell Mechem by email at [email protected] If a public meeting is requested, information about the date and time of the meeting will be published in the local newspaper, The Santa Maria Times, and will be sent to persons on the EPA's Casmalia Resources Site mailing list. To be added to the mailing list, please contact: Alejandro Diaz at (415)972-3242 or by email at [email protected] A copy of the settlement document may be obtained by calling (415) 369-0559 extension 10, and leaving a message with your name, phone number, and mailing address or email address.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be addressed to Casmalia Case Team, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street (mail code SFD-7-1), San Francisco, California 94105-3901, or may be sent by email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Additional information about the Casmalia Resources Site and about the proposed settlement may be obtained on the EPA-maintained Casmalia Resources Site Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/region09/casmalia or by calling Russell Mechem at (415) 972-3192.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Settling Parties: Parties that have elected to settle their liability with EPA at this time are as follows:

    A D S Gold, Inc.; A J Diani; A&R Brooks & Perkins/AAR Brooks & Perkins; Accurate Container; Corporation; Ace Clearwater; Action Instruments; Active Supply; Addmaster Corp.; Adler Screw Products, Inc.; Alpha Centurion, Inc.; Alpha Therapeutic Corp; ALPS Electric; Al-Sal Oil Inc.; Alumin-Art Plating Co; Amada Mfg.; Amber Chemical; American Crystal Sugar Company; Apperson Business Forms; Arkema Inc., on behalf of its predecessor, Pennwalt Corporation and its subsidiary Turco Products, Inc.; Armo Construction; Babbitt Bearing Company, Inc.; Bacon Industries; Bahia Resort Hotel; Bardex; Bay Area Rapid Transit District; BEI Motion Systems Co; Belden Inc.; Bell Foundry Company; Betts Spring Company; Bewley Allen Cadillac; Bishops School; Bixby Land Company; Blomberg Window Systems; Blommer Chocolate Company; Body Glove; Boyles Snyder Company; Budget Industrial Uniform Supply, Inc.; Butler Manufacturing Company; C&H Sugar Company; Cal Aurum Industries; Cal Nev Pipe Line, LLC.; Calder, Inc.; California Box; California Combining Corporation; California Electro Plating, Inc.; California Fine Wire; California Hotwood, Inc.; California Neon Products; Carpinteria County Water District; Centinela Valley High School District; Central Concrete Supply Company Inc.; Central Diagnostic Laboratories; Ceramic Decorating Company, Inc.; Certain-Teed Corp.; Certified Alloy Products, LLC.; Charles H. Lilly Co.; Chem Pro Laboratory Inc.; Christopher Chevrolet; Chromal Plating Company; Cirexx Corporation; City of Alhambra; City of Beverly Hills; City of Chula Vista; City of Covina; City of El Segundo; City of Fontana; City of Fremont; City of Gardena; City of Irvine; City of Milpitas; City of Montclair; City of Montebello; City of Redding; City of Redlands; City of Redondo Beach; City of Redwood City; City of Salinas; City of San Bernardino; City of Scotts Valley; City of South San Francisco; City of Union City; City of Westminister; City of Whittier; Claremont Colleges; Cleveland Wrecking Company; Cloverleaf Group, Inc.; COEN Company, Inc.; Connector Plating Corp.; Continental Forge; Continental Maritime; Continuous Curve Contact Lenses Inc.; Control Components; Coordinated Equipment Co.; Cordova Truck Dismantlers; Core Laboratories LP; Corona Clipper; County of Monterey; County of Santa Cruz; CR&R, Inc.; Crestline-Lake Arrowhead Water District; Crown Central Petroleum Corp; Cushman Wakefield; D.A. Stuart Oil Co. of America; Daniels Engraving Co., Inc.; Daughters of Charity Health System; Delano Growers Grape Products; Delta Tech Service, Inc.; Del Mar Fairgrounds; Deseret Industries; Developmental Science; Dickies Standard Industrial Towel & Uniform Supply; Dip Braze, Inc.; E L Yeager Construction Co., Inc.; East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD); East Bay Regional Park District; Eaton Corp.; El Chorlito Mexican Restaurant; Electro Test, Inc.; Electrofusion Corporation; Elk Grove Unified School District; Emerald Packaging Inc.; Emerson Electric Company on behalf of ACDC Electronics; Entenmann-Rovin Company; Enthone, Inc.; Ernst Benary of America, Inc.; Etched Circuits, Inc.; Facit, Inc.; Fallbrook Public Utility District; FedEx Freight Corporation; FedEx Office and Print Service; Fiat Products, Inc.; Filbar Furniture Manufacturing; Finish Kare Products, Inc.; Flopetrol-Johnson; Florestone Products; Flowserve Corporation; Foremost Enameling; Fort Howard Corporation/Lily Tulip, Inc.; Foster & Gardner Inc.; Fresh Express Incorporated, Formerly Known As, Freshco, Inc.; Fry Steel Company; G & M Oil Company; G&K Services, Inc.; Gallo Glass; George Masker; Gilmore Liquid Air Company; Global Plating, Inc.; Gold Coast Transit (f/k/a South Coast Area Transit); Golden Era Production; Golden Rain Foundation; Good Samaritan Hospital of Santa Clara Valley; Green's Industrial Painting, Inc.; Helical Products Company, Inc.; Hershey Foods Corporation; Hexcel Corporation; Holmes-Hally Industries; Hues Metal Finishing, Inc.; Hunter Woodworks; Hussmann Corporation; IBM Corporation; Industrial Polychemical Service; Industrial Waste Utilization, Inc.; International Coatings Company, Inc.; Intersil Corporation; Ivy Hill Packaging Corp; J L Manta; J.C. Schumacher Company; JDS Uniphase Corporation; Kearney- KPF; Kenyon McIntyre; Keyes Motors, Inc.; KIK Pool Additives, Inc and KIK SoCal, Incd/b/a KIK Custom Products; Jet Services (Delaware), Inc. f/k/a Jet Services West, Inc. a/k/a Jet Air, Inc. and Chromalloy San Diego Turbine,; LLC, Sequa Corp.; Kleinfelders & Associates; Kraco Enterprises, Inc.; Krupp/Taylor USA; Kuhlman Corporation; L-3 Integrated Optical Systems; La Habra Heights County Water District; Lennox International, Inc.; Levan Specialty Company; Boral Roofing LLC, fka MonierLifetile LLC, and Boral Lifetile Inc. as Successor in interest to Life Tile Corp.; Ligature; Litronix, Inc.; Loma Linda Oil Company; Lone Star Industries; Lopez Canyon Conference Ground; LSI Corporation; M&M Printed Bags, Inc.; Marathon Construction Corporation; Marine Terminals Corporation; Martin Aviation, Inc.; Marvin Engineering Co., Inc.; MCC Flow Seal; McCormick & Company; McWane, Inc.; Media News Group; Medical Analysis Systems, Inc.; Merle Norman Cosmetics; Met-Tek, Inc.; Micro Linear Corporation; Mid-West Fabricating Co.; Miller Dial Corp.; Milton Roy, LLC; Monogram Industries; Muller Construction Supply; Nakamura Berry Farm; National Controls Inc.; Nekoosa Packaging; Niello Porsche Audi; Niklor Chemical Corp, Inc.; North County Transit District; Northern Telecom Electronics; Nova Group, Inc.; Novartis Corporation; Omnitrans; Orcutt Unified School District; Oxnard Union High School District;PACCAR as indemnitor and on behalf of Trico-Kobe; Pacific Corrugated Pipe Co.; Pacific Mutual Financial Corp; Pacific Piston Ring Co., Inc.; Pacific Pump; Pasadena Imaging Medical Group; Pasha Services; Peninsula Labs, Inc.; Pentair, Inc.; Petro-Diamond Terminal Company; Photo Fabricators, Inc.; Pierce Realty; Pomona Unified School District; Pool Water Products; Port of Oakland; Porvene Roll-a-Door; Poway Unified School District; Precision Founders, Inc.; Propulsion Controls Engineering; Quantic Industries; R Burke Corp; Rachelle Laboratories, Inc.; Rain Bird Sprinkler; Ralph Horowitz; Rancho California Water District; Rediger Investment Co; Reliance Steel; Reno Newspapers Inc. dba Reno Gazette; Reynolds Industry Inc.; River Edge Farm; Riverside Publishing Company; Rohrback Cosasco Systems; Ronlo Engineering; Rug Doctor, Inc and Rug Doctor LLC (as successor in interest to Rug Doctor, Inc).; Running Springs Water District; San Diego Refining Co; San Diego Wood Preserving; San Diego Zoological Society; Sander's Service Inc.; Santa Maria Chili, Inc.; Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District; Scheidt Hayden & Hall; Scott Engineering, Inc.; SDI Industries, Inc.; Seachrome Corporation; Seagate Technology Public Limited Company, on behalf of itself and Aeon Corp., Conner Peripherals, Inc Control Data Corporation, Domain Technology, Inc., Maxtor Corporation and Seagate Substrates, Inc.; Seneca Resources; Senior Operations, LLC; Serra Corp; Service Plating Company, Inc.; Sheg's Garage; Shippers Imperial, Inc.; Signal Hill Petroleum, Inc.; Silicon Detector Corp; Simpson Timber Company; Skyline Ready Mixed Concrete; Smart & Final; Snow Summit Ski Corp; SnugTop; Solid State Devices, Inc.; Sonic Plating Co., Inc.; Southland Sod Farm; Spears Manufacturing Co.; Spears Manufacturing Co.; SPX Corporation; St. Joseph Health System; St. Mary's High School; Stainless Micro-Polish, Inc; Sterling Electric Inc.; Steve's Plating Corporation; Stutzman Plating, Inc.; Sullair, LLC; Sundstrand Corporation; Superior Metals Shapes Inc.; Symbolic Displays, Inc.; T W Cooper; TA Manufacturing Company; Target Stores; Taylor-Dunn; Telfer Tank Lines; Tetra Tech, Inc.; The Earthgrains Company; The Monadnock Company; The Tapmatic Corporation; Thums Long Beach Co.; Tiodize Co Inc.; TMG Partners (f/k/a Martin Group of Companies, Inc); Trans King; Treffers Precision Inc.; Tropitone Furniture, Inc.; Tunnell Roofing Company, Inc.; Turner Industries; Union Engineering Company; United Alloys; University of Redlands; Valero; Valley Crest Companies, LLC.; Valley Metal Treating, Inc.; Valley Presbyterian Hospital; Varner Brothers, Inc.; Ventura Pacific Company; Ventura Port District; Ventura West Marina; Vibra Sonic; Vista Metals Corp; W. A. Benjamin Electric Company; W.R. Weaver Company; Wadco Industries, Inc.; Walker Springs & Stamping; Washington Iron Works; Weber Aircraft; Weldcraft Products; West Sacramento Land Company; Westcoast Aerospace; Western Hyway, Inc.; Whittier Union High School District; Wilson & Hampton Painting Contractors; Young's Iron Works, Inc.; Zieman Manufacturing Company; Zilog Corporation.

    Dated: January 30, 2015. Enrique Manzanilla, Director, Superfund Division, U.S. EPA Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06447 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0083; FRL—9925-04-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Carbon Black, Ethylene, Cyanide and Spandex (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Carbon Black, Ethylene, Cyanide and Spandex (40 CFR part 63, subpart YY) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1983.07, OMB Control No. 2060-0489) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30, 2015. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (79 FR 30117) on May 27, 2014 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. 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.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0082, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: Owners and operators of carbon black production, ethylene production, cyanide chemicals manufacturing, and spandex production facilities are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY. They are required to provide initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to NESHAP. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of carbon black production, ethylene production, cyanide chemicals manufacturing, and spandex production facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart YY).

    Estimated number of respondents: 61 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, semiannually and annually.

    Total estimated burden: 41,753 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $4,549,698 (per year), includes $350,957 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 28,229 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. The respondent burden hours and costs increased because the previous ICR substantially underestimated the time and effort to collect, compile and maintain records and information required by the standard.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06668 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review, Reinstatement and Renewal; Comment Request; (3064-0029) AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the reinstatement and renewal of an existing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). On November 10, 2014, (79 FR 66722), the FDIC requested comment for 60 days on a proposal to renew the following information collection: Notification of Bank Services, OMB Number: 3064-0029, described below. No comments were received. The FDIC hereby gives notice of its plan to submit to OMB a request to approve the reinstatement and renewal of this collection, and again invites comment on this reinstatement and renewal.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before April 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:

    http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal/.

    Email: [email protected] Include the name of the collection in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Gary A. Kuiper, Counsel, (202.898.3877), or John Popeo, Counsel, (202.898.6923), MB-3007, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

    Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

    All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gary Kuiper or John Popeo, at the FDIC address above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposal to reinstate and renew the following currently-approved collection of information:

    1. Title: Notification of Bank Services.

    OMB Number: 3064-0029.

    Form Numbers: FDIC 6120/06.

    Affected Public: Business or other financial institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 400.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1/2 hour.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Total estimated annual burden: 200 hours.

    General Description of Collection: Insured state nonmember banks are required to notify the FDIC, under section 7 of the Bank Service Corporation Act (12 U.S.C. 1867), of the relationship with a bank service corporation. Form 6120/06 (Notification of Performance of Bank Services) may be used by banks to satisfy the notification requirement.

    Request for Comment

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; 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. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated at Washington, DC, this 18th day of March 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06570 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    DATE AND TIME:

    Tuesday March 17, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. and Its Continuation on Thursday March 19, 2015 at the Conclusion of the Open Meeting.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.

    STATUS:

    This Meeting Will Be Closed To The Public.

    Federal Register Notice of Previous Announcement—80 FR 13376 THIS ITEM WAS ALSO DISCUSSED:

    Internal personnel rules and internal rules and practices.

    CHANGE IN THE MEETING:

    This meeting will be continued at a future date.

    PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06802 Filed 3-20-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 8, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. The Frank D. Dunnick Trust, Pittsburg, Kansas, and Kevin F. Mitchelson and Larry J. Dunnick, both of Pittsburg, Kansas, as co-trustees, to acquire voting shares of Southeast Kansas Bancshares, Inc., Girard, Kansas, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Prescott State Bank Holding Company, Inc., and Prescott State Bank, both in Prescott, Kansas; and Exchange State Bank, Saint Paul, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 19, 2015. Margaret McCloskey Shanks, Deputy Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06676 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Savings and Loan Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and the Board's Regulation LL (12 CFR part 238) to acquire shares of a savings and loan 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 8, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. J. Scott Nelson, Redwood Falls Minnesota, individually and James Tersteeg, and Thomas Stotesbery, all as a trustees of the HomeTown Bank Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Redwood Falls Minnesota; J. Scott Nelson and John Nelson, Redwood Falls, Minnesota; Sarah Hoyt, St Paul Minnesota, all as members of the Nelson family shareholder group acting in concert, to acquire and retain voting shares Redwood Financial, Inc., Redwood Falls, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly acquire and retain voting shares of HomeTown Bank, Redwood Falls, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 19, 2015. Margaret McCloskey Shanks, Deputy Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06675 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; Correction

    This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 2015-06196) published on pages 14133 and 14134 of the issue for Wednesday, March 18, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. Beartooth Financial Corporation, Billings, Montana; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Beartooth Bank, Billings, Montana.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

    1. FNBK Holdings, Inc., Dallas, Texas; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of The First National Bank of Kemp, Kemp, Texas.

    Comments on this application must be received by April 13, 2015.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 19, 2015. Margaret McCloskey Shanks, Deputy Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06673 Filed 3-23-15; 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 17, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:

    1. Kentucky Bancshares, Inc., Paris, Kentucky; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Madison Financial Corp., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Madison Bank, both in Richmond, Kentucky.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. Minier Financial, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan with 401(k) Provisions, Minier, Illinois; to acquire additional voting shares, for a total of 51 percent of the voting shares of Minier Financial, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire additional voting shares of First Farmers State Bank, both in Minier, Illinois.

    2. Wintrust Financial Corporation, Rosemont, Illinois; to merge with Community Financial Shares, Inc., Glen Ellyn, Illinois, and thereby indirectly acquire Community Bank-Wheaton/Glen Ellyn, Illinois.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 19, 2015. Margaret McCloskey Shanks, Deputy Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06674 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 141 0171] Par Petroleum Corporation and Mid Pac Petroleum, LLC; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Consent Agreement.

    SUMMARY:

    The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/parmidpacconsent online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “Par Petroleum Corporation—Consent Agreement; File No. 141-0171” on your comment and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/parmidpacconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Par Petroleum Corporation—Consent Agreement; File No. 141-0171” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anna Kertesz, Bureau of Competition, (202-326-2511), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent orders to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for March 18, 2015), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 17, 2015. Write “Par Petroleum Corporation—Consent Agreement; File No. 141-0171” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

    Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

    1 In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/parmidpacconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

    If you file your comment on paper, write “Par Petroleum Corporation—Consent Agreement; File No. 141-0171” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before April 17, 2015. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order To Aid Public Comment Introduction

    The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted from Par Petroleum Corporation (“Par”), subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Order (“Consent Agreement”) designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects resulting from Par's proposed acquisition of 100% of the outstanding voting securities of Koko'oha Investments, Inc. (“Koko'oha”), which owns all of the membership interests of Mid Pac Petroleum, LLC (“Mid Pac”). Under the terms of the proposed Decision and Order (“Order”) contained in the Consent Agreement, Par must terminate its acquired storage and throughput rights at Aloha Petroleum, Ltd.'s (“Aloha”) Barbers Point Terminal (“Barbers Point Terminal”).

    The Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for 30 days to solicit comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the Consent Agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the Consent Agreement, modify it, or make the Order final.

    The Parties

    Par, a publicly-traded diversified energy company based in Houston, Texas, engages in the refining, bulk supply, transportation, and marketing of petroleum products in Hawaii through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Hawaii Independent Energy, LLC (“HIE”). HIE owns and operates the 94,000 barrel-per-day Kapolei refinery on Oahu and refined product terminals in Hawaii. HIE markets gasoline through its Tesoro-branded retail locations and wholesale and retail sales to third parties.

    Koko'oha, through its wholly-owned subsidiary Mid Pac, engages in the bulk supply, marketing, and distribution of petroleum products in Hawaii. Mid Pac owns and operates refined products terminals and is the exclusive licensee of the “76” gasoline brand in Hawaii. Mid Pac markets gasoline through its branded retail locations and wholesale and retail sales to third parties.

    The Proposed Acquisition

    Pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated June 2, 2014, Par proposes to acquire Koko'oha for $107 million (the “Acquisition”). The Commission's Complaint alleges that the Acquisition, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by substantially lessening competition in the market for bulk supply of Hawaii-grade gasoline blendstock (“HIBOB”) in the state of Hawaii.

    The Relevant Market

    The relevant product market in which to analyze the competitive effects of the Acquisition is the bulk supply of HIBOB. Refineries produce HIBOB from crude oil. HIBOB is the only gasoline blendstock that, when combined with ethanol, yields gasoline that meets the standards and specifications of Hawaii law. No substitute exists for HIBOB for motor vehicles that must use Hawaii-grade gasoline.

    Bulk supply means the provision of larger-than-truckload volumes of petroleum products, which can come from local refineries or via ocean-going vessels. Bulk suppliers need bulk volumes of gasoline blendstock (either through their own refinery operations or through imports) and terminal capacity. Bulk suppliers deliver bulk supply of HIBOB into gasoline terminals for storage and local distribution, or for further pipeline or marine shipment. No alternative exists to the bulk supply of HIBOB.

    The relevant geographic market in which to assess the competitive effects of the Acquisition is Hawaii. Bulk suppliers refine HIBOB in, or import it into, Hawaii.

    The Structure of the Market

    Bulk supply of HIBOB comes from either the two local refineries or imports from out of state via ocean-going vessels. Par and Chevron Corporation (“Chevron”) are the only local refiners. Non-refiners Aloha and Mid Pac can supply bulk volumes to Hawaii, for distribution throughout the state, by receiving imported HIBOB cargoes through Barbers Point Terminal. This is the only terminal in Hawaii not owned by a local refiner that can receive full waterborne cargoes of HIBOB from out of state. By virtue of a long-term storage and throughput agreement, Mid Pac holds substantial storage and throughput rights at Barbers Point Terminal, which provides Mid Pac with sufficient terminal access to handle and distribute imported HIBOB cargoes.2 The four bulk suppliers—Par, Mid Pac, Chevron, and Aloha—own or control access to all of the Hawaii gasoline terminals that handle bulk volumes of HIBOB.

    2 Aloha entered the storage and throughput agreement with Mid Pac in mid-2005, shortly after the Commission sought to enjoin Aloha's acquisition of Trustreet Properties LLP, Aloha's fifty-percent partner in the Barbers Point Terminal at the time. The Commission subsequently dismissed its complaint in that matter. See Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm'n, FTC Resolves Aloha Petroleum Litigation (Sept. 6, 2005), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2005/09/ftc-resolves-aloha-petroleum-litigation.

    Effects of the Acquisition

    The Acquisition is likely to substantially lessen competition and lead to higher prices for bulk supply of HIBOB in Hawaii. The potential for competitive harm from the Acquisition stems from the importance of imports in establishing HIBOB prices. Although Aloha and Mid Pac typically buy bulk supply of HIBOB from Par and Chevron, Aloha and Mid Pac use their import capabilities to obtain favorable HIBOB bulk supply prices from the local refiners. Aloha and Mid Pac's import capabilities serve to constrain local refiners' bulk supply prices of HIBOB.

    The Acquisition would weaken the threat of imports and relax a competitive constraint on HIBOB bulk supply prices. Although the Acquisition reduces from four to three the number of bulk suppliers of HIBOB, the increase in concentration from the loss of Mid Pac does not give rise to competitive concerns. Mid Pac's ability to command import parity pricing makes it a bulk supply market participant, but the evidence did not show that Mid Pac's participation in bulk supply or downstream markets is competitively significant. However, Par's acquisition of Mid Pac's storage rights at Barbers Point Terminal would result in Par and Aloha sharing access to the terminal. Through these acquired rights, Par could limit Aloha's use of the terminal and hamper Aloha's ability to import bulk supply of HIBOB, thus weakening Aloha's ability to use its import capabilities to obtain better bulk supply prices. With Aloha as a weakened competitor, Par could unilaterally exercise market power post-merger or increase the likelihood and degree of coordination between Par and Chevron. As a result, the Acquisition likely would increase the price of bulk supply of HIBOB, which would ultimately lead to higher gasoline prices for Hawaii consumers.

    Entry Conditions

    Entry into the relevant line of commerce in the relevant section of the country would not be timely, likely, or sufficient to deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects arising from the Acquisition. The prospect of new entry through construction of a refinery or import-capable terminal is extremely remote, given the financial, regulatory, and logistical challenges such entry would need to surmount. It is also unlikely that a new entrant would import HIBOB to counteract the competitive harm described above, as current bulk suppliers have no incentive to offer terminal access to create or support entry by a new bulk supply competitor.

    The Decision and Order

    The Order resolves the competitive concerns raised by the Acquisition by preserving flexibility for HIBOB imports at Barbers Point Terminal. The Order requires Par to terminate its rights at Barbers Point Terminal within 5 days after the closing date of the Acquisition. The Order allows Par to retain only those rights necessary to load a limited number of tanker trucks at Barbers Point Terminal truck rack. These rights would not interfere with the storage and handling of full cargoes of imported HIBOB at Barbers Point Terminal. The Commission must approve any modification to Par's rights to load products at Barbers Point Terminal or any new agreement relating to storage or throughput rights at Barbers Point Terminal. Par may renew or extend the agreement that permits the loading of tanker trucks at Barbers Point Terminal truck rack, without prior Commission approval.

    In addition, the Order obligates Par to provide the Commission prior written notice of an acquisition of any leasehold, ownership, or any other interest in any assets engaged in the bulk supply of HIBOB in Hawaii. In light of the post-acquisition structure of the HIBOB bulk supply market, Par's future acquisition of any interest enumerated above could raise competitive concerns that may warrant careful investigation by the Commission. However, Par may acquire, without prior written notice, rights or assets not used for bulk supply, which would not result in an increase in concentration in the relevant market. Specifically, the Order excludes from prior written notice the acquisitions of: (i) Pipeline throughput rights, (ii) barges or other vessels engaged only in inter-island movement of HIBOB, or (iii) petroleum product terminals or other storage facilities that are unable to receive at least 150,000 barrels of petroleum products in a single delivery from out of state on ocean-going vessels. The acquisition of these rights or assets would not raise competitive concerns in the bulk supply of HIBOB in Hawaii.

    To ensure Par's compliance with the Order, Par must submit periodic compliance reports and give the Commission prior notice of certain events that might affect its compliance obligations arising from the Order. Lastly, the Order terminates after 10 years.

    The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the Consent Agreement, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the Order or to modify its terms in any way.

    By direction of the Commission, Commissioner Wright dissenting.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    Statement of the Federal Trade Commission  1 In the Matter of Pac Petroleum Corporation and Mid Pac Petroleum, LLC

    1 Chairwoman Ramirez, Commissioner Brill, Commissioner Ohlhausen, and Commissioner McSweeny join in this statement.

    The Commission has reason to believe the proposed acquisition of Koko'oha Investment Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary Mid Pac Petroleum, LLC by Par Petroleum Corporation is likely to substantially lessen competition in the bulk supply of Hawaii-grade gasoline blendstock, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The transaction is likely to impede the ability of Aloha Petroleum, Ltd., the only remaining bulk supplier without a local refinery, to use imports to constrain the local refiners' bulk supply prices. Par has agreed to settle the Commission's charges. Our remedy counteracts the alleged potential anticompetitive effects of the proposed acquisition without eliminating any of the efficiencies from the combination of Par and Mid Pac.

    As set forth in the complaint, the competitive concerns from this acquisition stem from the unique characteristics of the Hawaiian market for bulk supply of Hawaii-grade gasoline blendstock (“HIBOB”), which is blended with ethanol to make finished gasoline. Other than Par and Chevron, Aloha is the only owner of a commercial gasoline terminal in Hawaii that is capable of receiving economical shipments of imported HIBOB—the Barbers Point terminal. Pursuant to a long-term storage and throughput agreement, Mid Pac currently shares access to Barbers Point.2 Par and Chevron can produce more gasoline (HIBOB and other gasoline blending components) than is consumed in Hawaii, rendering imports unnecessary. However, Aloha's ability to threaten credibly to import HIBOB constrains the prices charged by the local refiners and, ultimately, the price paid by Hawaii gasoline consumers. Aloha's ability to threaten to import at Barbers Point thus is key to negotiations with Par and Chevron.

    2 Mid Pac acquired its rights to the Barbers Point terminal in 2005 after the Commission's challenge of Aloha's acquisition of Trustreet Properties LLP, which was Aloha's 50 percent partner in the terminal at the time.

    The Commission's investigation uncovered evidence that Par's acquisition of Mid Pac's throughput and storage rights at Barbers Point would give Par the incentive and ability to reduce Aloha's capability to constrain prices through importing, thereby increasing the price Aloha pays for bulk supply. As an incumbent local refiner that seeks to supply Aloha, Par would have an incentive to use the Barbers Point rights strategically and differently than Mid Pac. By storing substantial amounts of gasoline for an extended period, Par could reduce the size of an import cargo that Aloha could receive at the terminal. This would force Aloha to spread substantial fixed freight costs over a smaller number of barrels of gasoline, which would significantly increase its cost-per-barrel of importing. Contrary to Commissioner Wright's assertion, the evidence shows that market participants, including Aloha itself, believe Par might profitably seek to adopt this strategy.

    Our reason to believe that Par would take steps leading to this competitive harm also flows from evidence and analysis suggesting that the benefits to Par of such a strategy outweigh its likely costs. The costs to Par associated with storing the amount of product necessary to tie up Aloha's import capability at Barbers Point appear modest at best. At the same time, Par stands to benefit significantly, in its bulk supply and downstream businesses, from even a slight increase in bulk supply prices.

    Moreover, even if the benefit to Par depends on Chevron following Par's strategy, evidence from the investigation suggests a substantial risk that Chevron would respond in that fashion. As the only other incumbent local refiner and potential local supplier to Aloha, Chevron also stands to benefit if Aloha's import costs are increased. Regardless of where in the supply chain it occurs, any increase in prices would harm Hawaii gasoline consumers.

    The proposed consent order is narrowly tailored to address these specific competitive concerns by requiring the termination of Par's acquired storage and throughput rights at Aloha's Barbers Point terminal.3 There is no evidence that this particular remedy would eliminate any of the efficiencies arising from the acquisition. The prior approval and notice provisions in the proposed consent order provide additional safeguards to alert the Commission of any future agreements or acquisitions that might similarly harm competition, while imposing minimal reporting requirements on Par. Under these circumstances, we believe that the remedy furthers the public interest.

    3 Aloha and Par had entered into negotiations regarding the termination of Par's storage and throughput rights at the Barbers Point terminal before the Commission identified this as a competitive concern.

    Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Joshua D. Wright In the Matter of Par Petroleum Corporation/Koko'oha Investments, Inc. (Mid Pac Petroleum, LLC)

    The Commission has voted to issue a Complaint and a Decision & Order against Par Petroleum Corporation (“Par”) to remedy the allegedly anticompetitive effects of Par's proposed acquisition of Mid Pac Petroleum, LLC (“Mid Pac”). I dissented from the Commission's decision because the evidence is insufficient to provide reason to believe Par's acquisition will substantially lessen competition in bulk supply of Hawaii-grade gasoline blendstock (“HIBOB”) in the state of Hawaii, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act.1 I commend Staff for their hard work in this matter. Staff has worked diligently to collect and analyze evidence related to numerous product markets within the Hawaiian gasoline industry. Indeed, Staff's thorough investigation has narrowed the scope of potential competitive concerns arising from the proposed transaction to the single theory of harm alleged in the Complaint. Based upon the evidence, I concluded there is no reason to believe the proposed transaction is likely to lessen competition in any relevant market. It follows, in my view, that the Commission should close the investigation and allow the parties to complete the merger without imposing a remedy.

    1 The Complaint alleges Mid Pac and Aloha participate in the bulk supply of HIBOB by virtue of the fact that they could command import parity pricing. While I am not persuaded by that assertion, my analysis of the transaction's likely competitive effects does not turn upon whether Mid Pac and Aloha are classified as bulk suppliers. Nor does the theory of harm articulated in the Complaint depend upon a reduction in the number of competitors in the bulk-supplied HIBOB market. I assume, arguendo, that the market definition articulated in the Complaint is correct and use it throughout this statement without loss of generality.

    The Complaint articulates a theory of competitive harm arising from the proposed transaction based upon the possibility that Par, a bulk supplier of HIBOB, will foreclose a potential downstream customer, Aloha Petroleum, Ltd. (“Aloha”), from its ability to import to discipline the prices of bulk-supplied HIBOB. Par's acquisition of Mid Pac includes the latter's storage rights at Barbers Point Terminal. Mid Pac and Aloha each currently have storage rights at Barbers Point Terminal sufficient to allow them to import HIBOB. After the merger, Par and Aloha would share access to the terminal. The theory of harm articulated in the Complaint is that Par would have the incentive and ability to use its newly acquired Mid Pac storage rights to “park” petroleum products at Barbers Point Terminal, and that this strategy would reduce or eliminate Aloha's ability to discipline bulk supply prices by threatening to import HIBOB, thus resulting in higher HIBOB prices which would ultimately be passed on to Hawaii consumers.

    The theory that Par might exclude Aloha in this way is certainly a plausible basis for further investigation. Indeed, competitive concerns involving the potential for exclusion are commonly invoked in transactions with vertical dimensions, though empirical evidence demonstrates vertical transactions are generally, but not always, procompetitive or competitively benign.2 The question, however, is whether the record evidence supports the theory. In short, the answer is no. For Par to have the incentive and ability to engage in this strategy, it must be profitable for it to do so. Neither economic analysis nor record evidence gives me reason to believe this is so. The evidence strongly suggests such an exclusionary strategy would not be profitable without Chevron Corporation's (“Chevron's”) cooperation. Chevron is the only other Hawaiian refiner aside from Par capable of selling bulk supplies of HIBOB to Aloha. Such tacit or explicit coordination to exclude Aloha is highly unlikely in the HIBOB market. Furthermore, the record evidence also indicates Aloha, the potential victim of the strategy, does not have any reason to believe Par would adopt this potentially anticompetitive strategy. Thus, I have no reason to believe that post-acquisition, Par will have the incentive and ability to raise prices of the bulk supply of HIBOB.

    2See generally James C. Cooper, et al., Vertical Antitrust Policy as a Problem of Inference, 23 Int'l J. Indus. Org. 639 (2005); Francine Lafontaine & Margaret Slade, Exclusive Contracts and Vertical Restraints: Empirical Evidence and Public Policy, in Handbook of Antitrust Economics (Paolo Buccirossi, ed., 2008).

    Prior to entering into a consent agreement with the merging parties, the Commission must first find reason to believe that a merger likely will substantially lessen competition under Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The fact that the Commission believes the proposed consent order is costless is not relevant to this determination. A plausible theory may be sufficient to establish the mere possibility of competitive harm, but that theory must be supported by record evidence to establish reason to believe its likelihood. Modern economic analysis supplies a variety of tools to assess rigorously the likelihood of competitive harm. These tools are particularly important where, as here, the conduct underlying the theory of harm—that is, vertical integration—is empirically established to be procompetitive more often than not. Here, to the extent those tools were used, they uncovered evidence that, consistent with the record as a whole, is insufficient to support a reason to believe the proposed transaction is likely to harm competition. Thus, I respectfully dissent and believe the Commission should close the investigation and allow the parties to complete the merger without imposing a remedy.

    [FR Doc. 2015-06626 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NHLBI.

    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, NHLBI.

    Date: April 27-28, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: Marriott Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Robert S. Balaban, Ph.D., Scientific Director, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Building 10, 10 Center Drive, CRC, 4th Floor, Room 1581, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-2116, [email protected]

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: www.nhlbi.nih.gov/about/committees/nhlbsc, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (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 18, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06595 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control

    Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    The meeting announced below concerns Cooperative Research Agreements to the World Trade Center Health Program (U01) PAR 12-126, initial review.

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:

    Time and Date:

    8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., April 14, 2015 (Closed) 8:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m., April 15, 2015 (Closed)

    Place: Atlanta Marriott Century Center, 2000 Century Boulevard NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30345, Telephone: (404) 325-0000.

    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

    Matters To Be Discussed: The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Cooperative Research Agreements Related to the World Trade Center Health Program (U01) PAR 12-126.”

    Contact Person for More Information: Nina Turner, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, CDC/NIOSH, 1095 Willowdale Road, Mailstop G905, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505, Telephone: (304) 285-5975.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06650 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOA) GH11-002, Conducting Public Health Research in Thailand by the Ministry of Public Health (MOPH); FOA GH12-004M, Conducting Public Health Research in South Africa by the National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS); FOA GH12-005, Conducting Public Health Research in China; and FOA GH14-002, Addressing Emerging Infectious Diseases in Bangladesh.

    Time and Date: 8:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m., EST, April 15, 2015 (Closed).

    Place: Teleconference.

    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

    Matters for Discussion: The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to FOA GH11-002, Conducting Public Health Research in Thailand by the Ministry of Public Health (MOPH); FOA GH12-004, Conducting Public Health Research in South Africa by the National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS); FOA GH12-005, Conducting Public Health Research in China; and FOA GH14-002, Addressing Emerging Infectious Diseases in Bangladesh.

    Contact Person for More Information: Hylan Shoob, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Global Health (CGH) Science Office, CGH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop D-69, Atlanta, Georgia 30033, Telephone: (404) 639-4796.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06653 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel Pathobiology of Asthma.

    Date: April 14, 2015.

    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Room 7180, Bethesda, MD 20817, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Tony L Creazzo, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7180, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-435-0725 [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 18, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06594 Filed 3-23-15; 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 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 Sleep Disorders Research Advisory Board.

    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: Sleep Disorders Research Advisory Board.

    Date: April 29, 2015.

    Time: 8:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To discuss and provide updates on NIH Sleep Research, the NIH Sleep Disorders Research Plan and inter-agency coordination activities, planning for.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Fishers Lane Conference, Center Terrace Level, 5635 Fisher Lane, Rockville, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Michael J. Twery, Ph.D., Director, National Center on Sleep Disorders Research, Division of Lung Diseases, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Suite 10038, Bethesda, MD 20892-7952, 301-435-0199 [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 18, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06600 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews (SDRR), Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or the Advisory Board), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting for the aforementioned subcommittee:

    Time and Date: 10:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EDT, April 14, 2015.

    Place: Audio Conference Call via FTS Conferencing.

    Status: Open to the public, but without a public comment period. The public is welcome to submit written comments in advance of the meeting, to the contact person below. Written comments received in advance of the meeting will be included in the official record of the meeting. The public is also welcome to listen to the meeting by joining the teleconference at the USA toll-free, dial-in number is 1-866-659-0537 and the pass code is 9933701.

    Background: The Advisory Board was established under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 to advise the President on a variety of policy and technical functions required to implement and effectively manage the new compensation program. Key functions of the Advisory Board include providing advice on the development of probability of causation guidelines that have been promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as a final rule; advice on methods of dose reconstruction, which have also been promulgated by HHS as a final rule; advice on the scientific validity and quality of dose estimation and reconstruction efforts being performed for purposes of the compensation program; and advice on petitions to add classes of workers to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC).

    In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the Advisory Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, and will expire on August 3, 2015.

    Purpose: The Advisory Board is charged with (a) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the development of guidelines under Executive Order 13179; (b) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the scientific validity and quality of dose reconstruction efforts performed for this program; and (c) upon request by the Secretary, HHS, advise the Secretary on whether there is a class of employees at any Department of Energy facility who were exposed to radiation but for whom it is not feasible to estimate their radiation dose, and on whether there is reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered the health of members of this class. The Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews was established to aid the Advisory Board in carrying out its duty to advise the Secretary, HHS, on dose reconstruction.

    Matters for Discussion: The agenda for the Subcommittee meeting includes the following dose reconstruction program quality management and assurance activities: Current findings from NIOSH and Advisory Board dose reconstruction blind reviews; dose reconstruction cases under review including Pacific Proving Grounds, DuPont Deepwater Works, and cases from Sets 14-18, including the Oak Ridge sites (Y-12, K-25, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Savannah River Site; plans for dose reconstruction case reviews; preparation of the Advisory Board's next report to the Secretary, HHS, summarizing the results of completed dose reconstruction reviews.

    The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Contact Person For More Information: Theodore Katz, Designated Federal Officer, NIOSH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, Mailstop E-20, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone (513) 533-6800, Toll Free 1 (800) CDC-INFO, Email [email protected]

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06643 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—Health Disparities Subcommittee (HDS)

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned subcommittee:

    Time and Date: 10:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. EDT, April 16, 2015.

    Place: CDC, Building 19, Rooms256/257, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30333.

    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 50 people. The public is welcome to participate during the public comment period, which is tentatively scheduled from 5:30 to 5:45 p.m. This meeting is also available by teleconference, please dial (866) 763-0273 and enter code 6158968.

    Purpose: The Subcommittee will provide advice to the CDC Director through the ACD on strategic and other health disparities and health equity issues and provide guidance on opportunities for CDC.

    Matters To Be Discussed: The Health Disparities Subcommittee members will discuss health equity in injury prevention, progress toward the ACD, CDC-approved Health Disparities Subcommittee recommendations, and updates on selected priorities of the Health Disparities Subcommittee.

    The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Web links:

    Windows Media: http://wm.onlinevideoservice.com/CDC1.

    Flash: http://www.onlinevideoservice.com/clients/CDC/?mount=CDC3.

    If you are unable to connect using the link, copy and paste the link into your web browser.

    Number for Technical Support: 404-639-3737.

    Contact Person For More Information: Leandris Liburd, Ph.D., M.P.H., M.A., Designated Federal Officer, Health Disparities Subcommittee, Advisory Committee to the Director, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., M/S K-77, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone 770-488-8343, Email: [email protected]

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
    [FR Doc. 2015-06645 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0797] The Food and Drug Administration Food Safety Modernization Act: Focus on Implementation Strategy for Prevention-Oriented Food Safety Standards; Public Meeting and Establishment of Docket AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting and establishment of docket.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the establishment of a docket to obtain comments that will inform our development of FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) implementation work plans. FDA is also announcing a public meeting entitled “FDA Food Safety Modernization Act: Focus on Implementation Strategy for Prevention-Oriented Food Safety Standards.” At the public meeting, we will share our current thinking on our operational strategy for implementation work plans. We will also provide interested persons an opportunity to provide input on this operational strategy and the risk-based industry oversight framework that is at the core of FSMA.

    DATES:

    See section III, “How to Participate in the Public Meeting” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document for dates and times of the public meeting, closing dates for advance registration, requesting special accommodations due to disability, and information on deadlines for submitting either electronic or written comments to FDA's Division of Dockets Management.

    ADDRESSES:

    See section III, “How to Participate in the Public Meeting” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions about registering for the meeting or to register by phone: Courtney Treece, Planning Professionals Ltd., 1210 West McDermott Dr., suite 111, Allen, TX 75013, 704-258-4983, FAX: 469-854-6992, email: [email protected]

    For general questions about the meeting or for special accommodations due to a disability: Juanita Yates, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-009), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1731, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) (Pub. L. 111-353), signed into law by President Obama on January 4, 2011, enables FDA to better protect public health by helping to ensure the safety and security of the food supply. FSMA amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to establish the foundation of a modernized, prevention-based food safety system. Among other things, FSMA requires FDA to issue regulations regarding produce safety, preventive controls for foods for humans and animals, intentional adulteration, the foreign supplier verification program (FSVP), and the FDA third-party accreditation program.

    While FSMA reinforces industry's primary role and responsibility for food safety, it also builds on and strengthens FDA's oversight role in establishing food safety standards, fostering compliance with those standards through guidance and technical assistance, and enforcing the standards to protect public health when problems occur. In fact, more so than ever before, we are called upon by FSMA to play a central leadership and operational role in the future global food safety system. Meeting this challenge—and successfully implementing FSMA's new prevention-oriented, systems approach to food safety—necessitates a new strategy for how we perform our food safety role and meet our new responsibilities.

    On May 2, 2014, we released our “Operational Strategy for Implementing the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA),” available electronically at http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm395105.htm, to guide the next phase of FSMA implementation. The operational strategy broadly outlines our approach to food safety and the operational strategy for our food safety program and implementation of FSMA after the rulemaking is complete. Within the “Operational Strategy for Implementing FSMA,” there is an appendix that outlines guiding principles for how the operational strategy can be implemented with respect to food and feed facilities, produce safety standards, and import oversight. The guiding principles include the following: Expanding inspection and surveillance; administering new administrative enforcement tools; developing guidance, education, and technical assistance tools; and building a prevention-oriented import system.

    The public meeting is an opportunity for interested persons to share views concerning how FDA should address the operational aspects of FSMA implementation as suggested by the guiding principles. However, the guiding principles do not lay out an exhaustive list of operational issues to be considered. Therefore, interested persons will have an opportunity at the public meeting to share views and suggest new ideas on a range of operational issues that FDA might consider in our FSMA implementation approach. Furthermore, the public meeting is an opportunity for FDA to share our current thinking on our implementation plans. We encourage interested persons to provide feedback on any ideas that we present at the public meeting related to the operational aspects of FSMA implementation. We are also establishing a docket to obtain comments that will inform our development of FSMA implementation work plans. The agenda and other documents will be accessible on our FSMA Web site at http://www.fda.gov/FSMA before the public meeting.

    II. Purpose and Format of the Public Meeting

    FDA is holding this public meeting on FSMA implementation to provide an update on current planning efforts and to receive input from the public to inform the development of operational work plans in the areas of produce safety, preventive controls for foods for humans and animals, measures to address intentional adulteration, FSVP, and the FDA third-party accreditation program. Please note that input received previously through our continued engagement with interested parties as part of the FSMA proposed rules' rulemaking process will also be considered in the development of operational work plans. However, the Agency will not accept any new information or data submitted during the public meeting or through the docket to inform any rulemaking.

    FDA will provide multiple opportunities for individuals to actively express their views. At the meeting, following introductory presentations by FDA, stakeholders will have an opportunity to participate in their choice of breakout sessions on the topics discussed at the meeting and engage in an open comment and question and answer session. Interested parties may also submit electronic or written comments to the docket by May 26, 2015. Breakout sessions will cover operational aspects of produce safety, preventive controls for human and animal food, intentional adulteration, FSVP, and the FDA third-party accreditation program, as well as overarching topics. We invite the public to provide information, share experiences, and raise issues on topics that will be addressed in the breakout sessions including (but limited to): increasing awareness/reaching the regulated community, potential partners on outreach and implementation, state of readiness, barriers to implementation, training and education for industry and regulators, guidance needs, promotion of best practices, technical assistance, data needs, inspection changes/approaches, compliance and enforcement issues, and long-term implementation success.

    There will be an opportunity for stakeholders who are unable to participate in person to join the meeting via Web cast. (See section III of this document for more information on the Web cast option.)

    III. How To Participate in the Public Meeting

    FDA is holding the public meeting on April 23, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and April 24, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Due to limited space and time, we encourage all persons who wish to attend the meeting to register in advance. There is no fee to register for the public meeting, and registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Onsite registration will be accepted, as space permits, after all preregistered attendees are seated. While there is not a formal comment session planned for the public meeting, it is anticipated that stakeholders will have ample opportunity to provide comments and opinions during the public meeting through their participation in breakout sessions and in the dialogue and question and answer session.

    Table 1 of this document provides information on participation in the public meeting.

    Table 1—Information on Participation in the Meeting and on Submitting Comments to the Docket Dates Electronic addresses Addresses Other information Attend public meeting April 23, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and April 24, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m Please preregister at http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEventsWorkshopsMeetingsConferences/default.htm Washington Marriott at Metro Center, 775 12th St. NW., Washington, DC 20005 Registration check-in begins at 8 a.m. View Web cast April 23, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and April 24, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m Individuals who wish to participate by Web cast are asked to preregister at http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/
  • WorkshopsMeetingsConferences/default.htm
  • The Web cast will have closed captioning.
    Preregister Register by April 16, 2015 Individuals who wish to participate in person are asked to preregister at http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/
  • WorkshopsMeetingsConferences/default.htm
  • We encourage the use of electronic registration, if possible.1 There is no registration fee for the public meeting.
    Request special accommodations due to disability Request by April 8, 2015 Juanita Yates, email: [email protected] See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Submit electronic or written comments Submit comments by May 26, 2015 Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852 Identify your comments with the docket number listed in brackets in the heading of this document. We encourage you to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal. 1 You may also register via email, mail, or fax. Please include your name, title, firm name, address, and phone and fax numbers in your registration information and send to: Courtney Treece, Planning Professionals Ltd., 1210 West McDermott Dr., suite 111, Allen, TX 75013, 704-258-4983, FAX: 469-854-6992, email: [email protected]
    IV. Comments, Transcripts, and Recorded Video

    Regardless of attendance at the public meeting, interested persons may submit to FDA's Division of Dockets Management (see Addresses in table 1 of this document) either electronic or written comments on FSMA implementation issues. You only need to send one set of comments. Identify the comments with the docket number listed in brackets in the heading of this document. However, we will not use any information or data submitted during the public meeting or through the docket to inform any FSMA rulemakings where the comment periods have closed.

    With respect to transcripts, please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available it will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov and at FDA's FSMA Web site at http://www.fda.gov/FSMA. You may also view the transcript at the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. A transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM, after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Send written requests to the Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029), 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg., Rockville, MD 20857.

    Additionally, we will be video recording the public meeting. Once the recorded video is available, it will be accessible at FDA's FSMA Web site at http://www.fda.gov/FSMA.

    Dated: March 18, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06656 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health: Notice of Charter Renewal

    This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health, Department of Health and Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period through March 20, 2017.

    For information, contact Simon McNabb, Designated Federal Officer, Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, Patriot's Plaza, 395 E Street SW., M/S P06, Washington, DC 20201, telephone 202/245-0550 or fax 202/245-0599, Email: [email protected]

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06649 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [60Day-15-15TG; Docket No. CDC-2015-0009] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on Promotion of the National Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Registry to Non-referral Centers.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0009 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulation.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note:

    All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Promotion of the National Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Registry to Non-referral Centers—New—Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is requesting a two-year Office of Management and Budget (OMB) information collection clearance for the project entitled “Promotion of the National ALS Registry to Non-referral Centers”. ATSDR is authorized by the Public Health Law No: 110-373, ALS Registry Act to (1) develop a system to collect data on amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and other motor neuron disorders that can be confused with ALS, misdiagnosed as ALS, or progress to ALS; and (2) establish a national registry for the collection and storage of such data to develop a population-based registry of cases.

    The primary goal of the National ALS surveillance system/registry is to obtain more complete information on the likely prevalence of ALS and to better describe the demographic characteristics (age, race, sex, and geographic location) of those with ALS. The secondary goal of the registry is to collect additional information on potential risk factors for ALS including, but not limited to, family history of ALS, smoking history, and military service. The proposed project is a new component to be added to the existing Registry and ALS Surveillance Projects to increase self-enrollment rates of those with ALS.

    ATSDR implemented the National ALS Registry (Registry) in 2009 using an algorithm applied to national administrative databases. A self-registration component was launched in October 2010. The Registry's case ascertainment methodology required validation; therefore, ATSDR established State and Metropolitan ALS Surveillance Projects (Surveillance Projects). In order to avoid biasing results from the Surveillance Projects' evaluation of the Registry's completeness, staff received instruction to not promote the Registry during the surveillance period.

    According to the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) published in 2014, the proportion of cases identified via self-registration was lower than those identified in the administrative data for the period October 2010-December 2011. On-going self-registration is critical because not all persons with ALS can be identified through the algorithm, and only self-registering persons with ALS can complete the risk-factor surveys. Therefore, efforts to increase Registry awareness among non-referral center neurology practices/neurologists is needed to increase self-enrollment of persons with ALS.

    This new information collection request is a result of the need to promote the Registry among neurologists who do not work at major ALS referral centers. The following objectives are set for this project:

    • To implement a pilot project to conduct educational and promotional outreach activities at non-referral center neurology practices in the U.S., to inform neurologists and their staff about the Registry;

    • To encourage neurologists to inform their patients about the Registry, and to increase persons with ALS self-enrollment in the Registry through the web portal via the use of existing Registry brochures, pamphlets, and factsheets; and

    • To examine the effectiveness of educational and promotional outreach activities by reviewing persons with ALS self-enrollment rates before, during, and after the project period.

    The increase in self-enrollment rates will allow ATSDR to produce more accurate estimates of prevalence of ALS, and collect risk-factor survey data from a more representative sample of persons with ALS nationwide. Additionally, self-enrollment of people with ALS provides them with opportunities to be informed about the disease risk factors, learn more about beneficial therapies and a cure for the disease. In due course, these activities will also allow ATSDR to fulfill its congressional mandate under the ALS Registry Act.

    To achieve the above mentioned objectives, a four group educational and promotional outreach study has been designed. Three groups (Group 1, Group 2 and Group 3), with two states in each group, will receive various educational and promotional components, and a fourth group (Group 4) consisting of the remaining 44 states, will serve as a comparison (will not receive any intervention). This project will implement a methodology similar to that used during previous ALS Surveillance Projects to identify all non-referral center neurologists in Groups 1, 2, and 3. Neurologists who do or would diagnose and/or care for ALS patients in Groups 1 and 2 and all neurologists in Group 3 will receive a mailing about the registry, whereas Group 4 the comparison group will not receive any outreach component. To analyze the change in ALS registry self-enrollment, ATSDR will compare, on a monthly basis, enrollment rates between Groups 1, 2, and 3, and 4, as well as with the 44-state Group 4.

    Study activities include, but are not limited to, initial and follow-up phone calls, mailings, train-the-trainer sessions, and key informant interviews. The initial phone call will: (1) determine if the neurologist(s) diagnose/care for patients with ALS; (2) determine how many ALS patients are seen on an annual basis, and (3) confirm contact information for neurologists. Providers who do or would diagnose/care for patients with ALS will receive a targeted mailing about the registry. Follow-up phone calls and faxes, as needed, will confirm the receipt of mailings (including posters, provider guide pamphlet, Persons with ALS Quick Start Guide etc.). Key informant interviews with neurologists will allow for better understanding of their knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about the Registry, and for gathering additional information about the currently deployed Registry materials. As neurologists may not be familiar with the self-enrollment process of the Registry, the project includes train-the-trainer site visits that will provide neurologists and staff (if requested to attend by the neurologist) with information to educate persons with ALS about the National ALS Registry self-enrollment process. The train-the-trainer module activities do not involve information collections.

    Participation is voluntary. For the duration (2 years), the project staff will conduct 3,800 initial phone calls, 1,900 follow-up #1 calls at one week post-mailing, 1,900 follow-up #2 calls at three months post-mailing, 30 train-the-trainer presentations, and 32 key-informant interviews.

    There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The estimated annualized burden hours for this data collection activity are 326.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • (in hours)
  • Neurologist Support Staff Initial Phone Call Checklist 1,900 1 6/60 190 Neurologist Support Staff Fax to Determine Provider Status 380 1 1/60 6 Neurologist Support Staff Follow-up Phone Call #1 (One Week Post-Mailing) 950 1 3/60 48 Neurologist Support Staff Follow-up Phone Call #2 (Three Months Post-Mailing) 950 1 3/60 48 Neurologist Support Staff Fax to Determine if Mailing Was Received 190 1 1/60 3 Neurologist Train-the-Trainer 15 1 1 15 Neurologist Key Informant Interview 16 1 1 16 Total 326
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06654 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-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 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 Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Basic Research in HIV-Related Heart, Lung and Blood Diseases.

    Time: April 16, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Renaissance Washington, DC Dupont Circle Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Susan Wohler Sunnarborg, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7182, Bethesda, MD 20892, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Translational Programs in Lung Diseases.

    Date: April 16, 2015.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Crystal City Marriott, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.

    Contact Person: William J. Johnson, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7178, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-435-0725, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Basic Research in HIV-Related Heart, Lung and Blood Diseases (R21).

    Date: April 16, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Renaissance Washington, DC Dupont Circle Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Susan Wohler Sunnarborg, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7182, Bethesda, MD 20892, [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 18, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06601 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-D-0663] Determining the Need for and Content of Environmental Assessments for Gene Therapies, Vectored Vaccines, and Related Recombinant Viral or Microbial Products; Guidance for Industry: Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Determining the Need for and Content of Environmental Assessments for Gene Therapies, Vectored Vaccines, and Related Recombinant Viral or Microbial Products; Guidance for Industry” dated March 2015. The guidance document provides investigational new drug application (IND) sponsors and applicants for a biologics license application (BLA) or a supplement to a BLA (BLA supplement), with recommendations on considerations when assessing whether to submit an Environmental Assessment (EA) for gene therapies, vectored vaccines, and related recombinant viral or microbial products (GTVVs). The guidance also contains recommendations as to what information should be included in an EA and what you can expect once an EA is filed. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance of the same title dated June 2014.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-7800. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.

    Submit electronic comments on the guidance 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:

    Tami Belouin, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Determining the Need for and Content of Environmental Assessments for Gene Therapies, Vectored Vaccines, and Related Recombinant Viral or Microbial Products; Guidance for Industry” dated March 2015. The guidance document provides IND sponsors and applicants for a BLA or a BLA supplement, with recommendations on considerations when assessing whether to submit an EA for GTVVs. The guidance also contains recommendations as to what information should be included in an EA and what you can expect once an EA is filed. The guidance supplements the guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry: Environmental Assessment of Human Drug and Biologics Applications” dated July 1998 (July 27, 1998, 63 FR 40127) (1998 Guidance) and supersedes the recommendations for GTVVs in section IV.B.1 “Assessing Toxicity to Environmental Organisms” in the 1998 Guidance. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance of the same title dated June 2014.

    In the Federal Register of June 20, 2014 (79 FR 35361), FDA announced the availability of the draft guidance of the same title dated June 2014. FDA received a few comments on the draft guidance and those comments were considered as the guidance was finalized. There were no changes to the guidance except for one correction to a technical error regarding influenza taxonomy. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance dated June 2014.

    The guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents FDA's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 25 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0322; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; and the collections of information for 21 CFR part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338.

    III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov 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.

    IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: March 19, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06686 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    The meeting announced below concerns Economic Studies of Immunization Policies and Practices, Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) IP15-001 and US Platform to Measure Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness against Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza-Associated Hospitalizations, FOA IP15-002, initial review.

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:

    Time And Date: 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m., April 15, 2015 (Closed).

    Place: Teleconference.

    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

    Matters For Discussion: The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Economic Studies of Immunization Policies and Practices”, FOA IP15-001 and “US Platform to Measure Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness against Laboratory-confirmed Influenza-associated Hospitalizations”, FOA IP15-002.

    Contact Person For More Information: Gregory Anderson, M.S., M.P.H., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E60, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone: (404) 718-8833.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06651 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    The meeting announced below concerns Detection and Characterization of Emerging Vector-Borne Zoonotic Pathogens in Indonesia, CK15-001; Sentinel Enhanced Dengue Surveillance System (SEDSS) Sites to Evaluate the Epidemiology and Prevention of Dengue and other Acute Febrile Illnesses in Puerto Rico, CK15-002, and Capacity Building to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Emerging Infectious Disease Threats and Strengthen Global Health Security in Uganda, CK15-003, Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), initial review.

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:

    Time And Date: 11:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m., April 21, 2015 (Closed).

    Place: Teleconference.

    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

    Matters For Discussion: The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Detection and Characterization of Emerging Vector-Borne Zoonotic Pathogens in Indonesia”, FOA CK15-001 and “Sentinel Enhanced Dengue Surveillance System (SEDSS) Sites to Evaluate the Epidemiology and Prevention of Dengue and other Acute Febrile Illnesses in Puerto Rico”, FOA CK15-002, and “Capacity Building to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Emerging Infectious Disease Threats and Strengthen Global Health Security in Uganda”, FOA CK15-003.

    Contact Person For More Information: Gregory Anderson, M.S., M.P.H., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E60, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone: (404) 718-8833

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06652 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-15-15GD] Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    Emergency Self Escape for Coal Miners—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) mission is to promote health and quality of life by preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) provides national and world leadership to prevent work-related illness, injury, disability, and death by gathering information, conducting scientific research, and translating knowledge gained into products and services. NIOSH's mission is critical to the health and safety of every American worker. The Office of Mine Safety and Health Research (OMSHR), one of the preeminent mining research laboratories in the world, is focused on occupational health and safety research for mine workers.

    Recent research by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has called for a detailed, formal task analysis of mine self-escape (National Research Council, 2013). Such an analysis should identify the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other attributes (KSAOs) needed by mine personnel in the event of a mine disaster to successfully complete an emergency self-escape. This analysis will identify gaps between worker demands and capabilities, and propose recommendations to either minimize those gaps or enhance existing systems (e.g., communications, training, technology).

    The purpose of the project is to enhance the ability of miners to escape from underground coal mines in the event of a fire, explosion, collapse of the mine structure, or flooding of the area by toxic gas or water. To escape, miners need to perform a set of tasks that apply specific knowledge and skills in moving through the mine, avoiding dangers, and using protective equipment. The project will identify the tasks, knowledge and skills, procedures, equipment, communications, and physical requirements of self-escape. The results are expected to lead to recommendations for improvements to task requirements and procedures, equipment, training and communication processes.

    NIOSH proposes this two-year study to better understand the requirements of emergency self-escape and to answer the following questions:

    • What tasks (and critical tasks) do miners perform during self-escape?

    • What knowledge beyond that needed to perform normal, routine mining tasks do miners require to facilitate successful self-escape?

    • What are the cognitive requirements (such as reasoning, or weighing and deciding among alternatives, recognizing when a course of action is not producing the intended results) beyond that needed to perform normal, routine mining tasks?

    • What other cognitive abilities or other cognitive competencies are needed?

    • What gaps exist between what miners are required to do for self-escape and their capabilities?

    • How can self-escape be improved by redesigning, eliminating, or modifying tasks or training, or by altering or introducing specific technologies/tools?

    To answer these questions, we will use a task analysis study design that utilizes a multiple-method approach, to include (a) review of available research, (b) interviews and focus group meetings with participants, and (c) unobtrusive observation (e.g., of drills). During interviews and focus groups, targeted questions are asked to elicit the level and type of desired information. This system of collecting information is “active” in that participants are presented stimuli (e.g., disaster scenarios, worker roles) and asked directly to provide their perceptions (e.g., of tasks or cognitive requirements needed to accomplish self-escape in that disaster). Observation checklists have been developed to capture relevant information during the unobtrusive naturalistic observations of self-escape drills. These data are then organized, collated, and re-presented to participants for confirmation of accuracy. Recommendations are generated based on study findings, related research and practices, and logical inference.

    Participants will be mining personnel drawn from two operating coal mines, one large and one smaller mine, to represent the variety within the industry. The data collection schedule (e.g., timing and duration of interviews and focus groups) will be modified as needed to minimize disruption to mine operations. Up to 30 miner volunteers will participate in the study. Minimal time (<5 minutes each) will be spent in recruitment and obtaining informed consent.

    Semi-structured interviews with mine personnel will require 1.5-2 hours of their time depending on the interview. Each of the two focus groups (the Initial Focus Group and the HTA) will require approximately 12 hours of a participant's time total. However, a given focus group will be executed in smaller blocks of time to reduce the burden on participants. Participants in the Initial Focus Group are not required to participate in the HTA Focus Group.

    Observation of drills will occur as part of normal mine operations and will not result in any additional burden on the respondents.

    The total estimated burden hours are 207.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Underground coal miners Recruitment Script 30 1 5/60 Underground coal miners Informed Consent 30 1 5/60 Underground coal miners Initial Interviews 6 1 1.5 Underground coal miners CTA Interviews 12 2 2 Underground coal miners Initial focus group sessions 12 6 1 Underground coal miners HTA focus group sessions 12 6 1
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06655 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcement GH15-001, Conducting Public Health Research in Kenya, initial review.

    SUMMARY:

    This document corrects a notice that was published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2015 (Volume 80, Number 48, Page 13008. The time and date should read as follows:

    Time and Date: 8:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m., Panel 1; and 1:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m., Panel 2, April 1, 2015 (Closed).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hylan Shoob, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Global Health (CGH) Science Office, CGH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop D-69, Atlanta, Georgia 30033, Telephone: (404) 639-4796.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06647 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families [CFDA Number 93.623] Announcement of the Award of a Single-Source Grant to Compass Family and Community Services in Youngstown, OH AGENCY:

    Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB), ACYF, ACF, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of the award of a single-source grant to Compass Family and Community Services in Youngstown, OH.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB), Division of Adolescent Development and Support (DADS), announces the award of a single-source grant in the amount of $144,000 to Compass Family and Community Services of Youngstown, OH, under the Basic Center Program.

    DATES:

    Awarded funds will support activities from 04/01/2015 through03/31/2016.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This single-source award will allow Compass Family and Community Services to operate a short-term emergency shelter for runaway and homeless youth for males and females ages 11 to18. The program's goals are to alleviate the problems of runaway and homeless youth by reuniting families, whenever possible, or finding alternative living arrangements; strengthening family relationships; building positive relationships with supportive adults; and helping youth decide on constructive courses of action. Compass Family and Community Services is a non-profit organization.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Holloway, Central Office Program Manager, Runaway and Homeless Youth Program, Division of Adolescent Development and Support, Family and Youth Services Bureau, 1250 Maryland Avenue SW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20024; Telephone: 202-205-9560; Email: [email protected]

    Statutory Authority:

    The Basic Center Program (BCP) grants are authorized by section 311(a)(1) of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, 42 U.S.C. 5711(a)(1), most recently amended by Public Law 110-378 on October 8, 2008.

    Mary M. Wayland, Senior Grants Policy Specialist, Division of Grants Policy, Office of Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06662 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4182-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcement DP15-010, Interstitial Cystitis Epidemiologic Study, Translation and Education, initial review.

    SUMMARY:

    This document corrects a notice that was published in the Federal Register on March 4, 2015 (Volume 80, Number 42, Page 11677). The time and date should read as follows:

    Time and Date:

    11:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., March 26, 2015 (Closed).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    M. Chris Langub, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE., Mailstop F46, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone: (770)488-3585, [email protected]

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06646 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; 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 Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; P41 BTRC review (2015/05).

    Date: May 27, 2015.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, Suite 920, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Manana Sukhareva, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 959, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-3397, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; 2015-10 SBIR HD Review.

    Date: June 24, 2015.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, Suite 920, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Ruth Grossman, DDS, Scientific Review Officer, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institute of Health, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Rm. 960, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-8775, [email protected]

    Dated: March 19, 2015. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06698 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer in Young Women (ACBCYW)

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:

    Time and Date: 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. EST, April 17, 2015.

    Place: This meeting is accessible by teleconference and web access. Teleconference and web access login information is as follows:

    Toll-Free Telephone: 1-800-369-1856, Participant passcode: 1927394.

    Net Conference and Web URL:

    For Participants:

    URL: https://www.mymeetings.com/nc/join/.

    Conference number: PW1978421, Audience passcode: 1927394 and: https://www.mymeetings.com/nc/join.php?i=PW1978421&p=1927394&t=c.

    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the net conference and audio phone lines available.

    Purpose: The committee provides advice and guidance to the Secretary, HHS; the Assistant Secretary for Health; and the Director, CDC, regarding the formative research, development, implementation and evaluation of evidence-based activities designed to prevent breast cancer (particularly among those at heightened risk) and promote the early detection and support of young women who develop the disease. The advice provided by the Committee will assist in ensuring scientific quality, timeliness, utility, and dissemination of credible appropriate messages and resource materials.

    Matters For Discussion: The agenda will include discussions on the current and emerging topics related to breast cancer in young women. These may include risk communication and health education, as well as approaches to increase awareness of clinicians/practitioners regarding topics such as breast cancer risk, breast health, symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment of breast cancer in young women. Discussions for formal recommendations will take place.

    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Online Registration Required: All ACBCYW Meeting participants must register for the meeting online at least 3 business days in advance at http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/what_cdc_is_doing/meetings.htm. Please complete all the required fields before submitting your registration and submit no later than April 14, 2015.

    Contact Person For More Information: Temeika L. Fairley, Ph.D., Designated Federal Officer, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE., Mailstop K52, Atlanta, Georgia, 30341, Telephone (770) 488-4518, Fax (770) 488-4760 Email: [email protected]

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06644 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following committee meeting.

    Times and Dates:

    12:30 p.m.-5:00 p.m., April 15, 2014 8:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m., April 16, 2014

    Place: CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Tom Harkin Global Communications Center, Building 19, Auditorium B, Atlanta, Georgia 30333.

    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 100 people. This meeting will also be Webcast, please see information below.

    Purpose: This Committee is charged with providing scientific and technical advice and guidance to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS); the Assistant Secretary for Health; the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and the Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The advice and guidance pertain to general issues related to improvement in clinical laboratory quality and laboratory medicine practice and specific questions related to possible revision of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA) standards. Examples include providing guidance on studies designed to improve safety, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, equity, and patient-centeredness of laboratory services; revisions to the standards under which clinical laboratories are regulated; the impact of proposed revisions to the standards on medical and laboratory practice; and the modification of the standards and provision of non-regulatory guidelines to accommodate technological advances, such as new test methods and the electronic transmission of laboratory information.

    Matters For Discussion: The agenda will include agency updates from CDC, CMS, and FDA. Presentations and discussions will focus on laboratory information exchange in health information technology; and laboratory safety and quality: lessons learned through the Ebola response.

    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Webcast: The meeting will also be Webcast. Persons interested in viewing the Webcast can access information at: http://wwwn.cdc.gov/cliac/default.aspx

    Online Registration Required: All people attending the CLIAC meeting in-person are required to register for the meeting online at least 5 business days in advance for U.S. citizens and at least 10 business days in advance for international registrants. Register at: http://wwwn.cdc.gov/cliac/Meetings/MeetingDetails.aspx#

    Register by scrolling down and clicking the “Register for this Meeting” button and completing all forms according to the instructions given. Please complete all the required fields before submitting your registration and submit no later than April 8, 2015 for U.S. registrants and April 1, 2015 for international registrants.

    Providing Oral or Written Comments: It is the policy of CLIAC to accept written public comments and provide a brief period for oral public comments whenever possible.

    Oral Comments: In general, each individual or group requesting to make oral comments will be limited to a total time of five minutes (unless otherwise indicated). Speakers must also submit their comments in writing for inclusion in the meeting's Summary Report. To assure adequate time is scheduled for public comments, speakers should notify the contact person below at least one week prior to the meeting date. Written Comments: For individuals or groups unable to attend the meeting, CLIAC accepts written comments until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated). However, it is requested that comments be submitted at least one week prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the Committee for their consideration and public distribution. Written comments, one hard copy with original signature, should be provided to the contact person below, and will be included in the meeting's Summary Report.

    Availability of Meeting Materials: To support the green initiatives of the federal government, the CLIAC meeting materials will be made available to the Committee and the public in electronic format (PDF) on the internet instead of by printed copy. Check the CLIAC Web site on the day of the meeting for materials. Note: If using a mobile device to access the materials, please verify that the device's browser is able to download the files from the CDC's Web site before the meeting. http://wwwn.cdc.gov/cliac/cliac_meeting_all_documents.aspx Alternatively, the files can be downloaded to a computer and then emailed to the portable device. An internet connection, power source and limited hard copies may be available at the meeting location, but cannot be guaranteed.

    Contact Person For Additional Information: Nancy Anderson, Chief, Laboratory Practice Standards Branch, Division of Laboratory Programs, Standards, and Services, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology and Laboratory Services, Office of Public Health Scientific Services, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop F-11, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4018; telephone (404) 498-2741; or via email at [email protected]

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register Notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06648 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.

    Project: National Evaluation of the Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children and Their Families Program: Phase VI (OMB No. 0930-0307)—REVISION

    The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center of Mental Health Services is responsible for the national evaluation of the Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children and Their Families Program (Children's Mental Health Initiative—CMHI) that will collect data on child mental health outcomes, family life, and service system development. Data will be collected on nine (9) service systems, and approximately 2,106 children and families and providers/administrators, using 26 instruments. Data collection will be decreased by 26,960 hours due to program changes resulting from the closing of 19 communities funded in FY 2009 that no longer require data collection and data collection for the Sector and Comparison Study.

    Data collection for this evaluation will be conducted over the next 3-year period. Child and family outcomes of interest will be collected at intake and at 6-month follow-up. The individual families will participate in the study for the remaining 12 months. The outcome measures include the following: Child symptomatology and functioning, family functioning, satisfaction, and caregiver strain. The service system data will be collected every 6 months during the remaining 3 years of the evaluation. Service utilization and cost data will be tracked and submitted to the national evaluation every 6 months using two tools—the Flex Fund Tool and the Services and Costs Data Tool—to estimate average cost of treatment per child, distribution of costs, and allocation of costs across service categories. Service delivery and system variables of interest include the following: Maturity of system of care development in funded system of care communities, adherence to the system of care program model, and client service experience.

    Internet-based technology such as data entry and management tools will be used in this evaluation. The measures of the national evaluation address annual Congressional reporting requirements of the program's authorizing legislation, and the national outcome measures for mental health programs as currently established by SAMHSA.

    Changes

    The previously approved Phase VI evaluation is composed of six core study components: (1) The System of Care Assessment that documents the development of systems of care through site visits conducted every 12-18 months; (2) the Cross-Sectional Descriptive Study that collects descriptive data on all children and families who enter the CMHS-funded systems of care throughout the funding period; (3) the Child and Family Outcome Study that collects data longitudinally on child clinical and functional status, and family outcomes; (4) the Service Experience Study that collects data on family experience and satisfaction with services from a sample of children and families; (5) the Services and Costs Study that assesses the costs and cost-effectiveness of system of care services; and (6) the Sustainability Study, as well as and three special studies: The Alumni Networking Study, the Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Initiative Evaluation, and the Sector and Comparison Study. Earlier revisions eliminated one of the core studies, the Sustainability Study, and two of the special studies: The Alumni Networking Study and the Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Initiative Evaluation.

    This revision requests the elimination of the Sector and Comparison Study. The eliminated studies have provided data to the program and are no longer needed. The Sector and Comparison Study was conducted with a subsample of the FY 2008-funded CA awardees, which are not included in this revision.

    The average annual respondent burden is estimated below. The estimate reflects the average number of respondents in each respondent category, the average number of responses per respondent per year, the average length of time it will take to complete each response, and the total average annual burden for each category of respondent, and for all categories of respondents combined.

    Table 1—Estimate of Respondent Burden Instrument Respondent Number
  • of respondents
  • Total average number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    System of Care Assessment Interview Guides A-I, L-S Key site informants 207 1 1.00 207 Child and Family Outcome Study Caregiver Information Questionnaire, Revised—Intake (CIQ-R-I) Caregiver 1,099 1 0.37 407 Caregiver Information Questionnaire, Revised—Follow-Up (CIQ-R-F) Caregiver 1,099 1 0.28 308 Caregiver Strain Questionnaire (CGSQ) Caregiver 1,099 2 0.17 374 Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)/Child Behavior Checklist 11/2-5/6-18 Caregiver 1,099 2 0.33 725 Education Questionnaire, Revision 2 (EQ-R2) Caregiver 1,099 2 0.33 725 Living Situations Questionnaire (LSQ) Caregiver 1,099 2 0.08 176 Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale—Second Edition, Parent Rating Scale (BERS-2C) Caregiver 1,781 2 0.17 606 Columbia Impairment Scale (CIS) Caregiver 1,989 2 0.08 318 Parenting Stress Index (PSI) Caregiver 536 2 0.08 86 Deveraux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) Caregiver 504 2 0.08 81 Preschool Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale—Second Edition, Parent Rating Scale (PreBERS) Caregiver 504 2 0.10 101 Delinquency Survey—Revised (DS-R) Youth 1,504 2 0.13 391 Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale—Second Edition, Youth Rating Scale (BERS-2Y) Youth 1,504 2 0.17 511 GAIN Quick—R: Substance Problem Scale Youth 1,504 2 0.08 241 Substance Use Survey, Revised (SUS-R) Youth 1,504 2 0.10 301 Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scales, Second Edition (RCMAS-2) Youth 1,504 2 0.07 211 Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale, Second Edition (RADS-2) Youth 1,504 2 0.05 150 Youth Information Questionnaire, Revised—Baseline (YIQ-R-I) Youth 1,504 0.25 376 Youth Information Questionnaire, Revised—Follow-Up (YIQ-R-F) Youth 1,504 0.25 376 Service Experience Study Multi-Sector Service Contacts, Revised—Intake (MSSC-R-I) Caregiver 2,257 1 0.25 564 Multi-Sector Service Contacts, Revised—Follow-Up (MSSC-R-F) Caregiver 2,257 2 0.25 1,129 Cultural Competence and Service Provision Questionnaire, Revised (CCSP-R) Caregiver 2,257 1 0.13 293 Youth Services Survey—Family (YSS-F) Caregiver 2,257 1 0.12 271 Youth Services Survey (YSS) Youth 1,504 1 0.08 120 Services and Costs Study Flex Funds Data Dictionary/Tool Local programming staff compiling/entering administrative data on children/youth 275 3 0.03 25 Services and Costs Data Dictionary/Data Entry Application Local evaluator, staff at partner agencies, and programming staff compiling/entering service and cost records on children/youth 2,257 20 0.05 2,257
    Summary of Annualized Burden Estimates for 1 Year Number of
  • distinct
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual burden
  • (hours)
  • Caregivers 2,257 1.5 9,059 Youth 1,504 1.6 2,682 Providers/Administrators 275 24.0 1,333 Total Summary 4,036 27 13,074

    Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by April 23, 2015 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] Although commenters are encouraged to send their comments via email, commenters may also fax their comments to: 202-395-7285. Commenters may also mail them to: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, Washington, DC 20503.

    Summer King, Statistician.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06606 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.

    Project: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Data Archive (SAMHDA) Data Portal Applications—In Use Without Approval

    The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ) funded the SAMHDA contract to promote the access and use of the nation's substance abuse and mental health data on December 3rd, 1997. This includes public-use data files, file documentation, and access to restricted-use data files to support a better understanding of this critical area of public health. As a part of the SAMHDA initiative, the Data Portal was created and launched in January of 2013. The Data Portal provides researchers that need access to restricted-use data remote access to confidential data via a virtual desktop from a secure, approved location. Completions of an application process and project approval are required for Data Portal access. The information being collected in this needs assessment will provide CBHSQ the information required to determine whether a researcher is qualified to obtain access to the Data Portal, and restricted-use data collected under the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (CIPSEA).

    Description of Forms: Applications will include 18 questions and require the submission of CV's. The application asks for information including the name of the organization that the researcher belongs to, name, title and contact information of the researcher and all subsequent researchers on the team, summaries of each applicants experience with restricted data and their CV's, descriptions of the proposed research projects and methodology, what data is being requested and why, and any potential restricted variables that may be requested.

    Description of Respondents: The respondent universe for this data collection effort is researchers with a need for access to CBHSQ restricted-use data. These data include the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), and NSDUH/DAWN supplement data. Respondents are researchers that have a need and want to provide this information. There are open calls for applications that occur 2 times a year, and applications are accepted during a month long period. Anyone may apply.

    Table 1—Annual Burden Estimate Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual responses Hours per
  • response
  • Total annual hour burden
    Data Portal Application Needs Assessment 100 1 100 5 500

    Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by April 23, 2015 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] Although commenters are encouraged to send their comments via email, commenters may also fax their comments to: 202-395-7285. Commenters may also mail them to: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, Washington, DC 20503.

    Summer King, Statistician.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06607 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0010] Agency Information Collection Activities: Nonimmigrant Petition Based on Blanket L Petition; Form I-129S; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection ACTION:

    60-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information or new collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort, and resources used by the respondents to respond), the estimated cost to the respondent, and the actual information collection instruments.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0010 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2006-0050. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at www.regulations.gov under e-Docket ID number USCIS-2006-0050;

    (2) Email. Submit comments to [email protected];

    (3) Mail. Submit written comments to DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments

    Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    Note:

    The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at: https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/Dashboard.do, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 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; and

    (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.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Nonimmigrant Petition Based on Blanket L Petition.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-129S; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or others for profit. This form is used by an employer to classify employees as L-1 nonimmigrant intracompany transferees under a blanket L petition approval. USCIS will use the data on this form to determine eligibility for the requested immigration benefit.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-129S is 75,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 225,000 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $89,180,000.

    If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov. We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number 202-272-8377.

    Dated: March 18, 2015. Laura Dawkins, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06637 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [OMB Control Number 1615-0027] Agency Information Collection Activities: Interagency Record of Request A, G, or NATO Dependent Employment Authorization or Change/Adjustment To/From A, G, or NATO Status, Form I-566; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e. the time, effort, and resources used by the respondents to respond), the estimated cost to the respondent, and the actual information collection instruments.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0027 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0041. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at www.regulations.gov under e-Docket ID number USCIS-2007-0041;

    (2) Email. Submit comments to [email protected];

    (3) Mail. Submit written comments to DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov. We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Laura Dawkins, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number 202-272-8377.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments

    Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    Note:

    The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at: https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/Dashboard.do, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 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; and

    (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.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Interagency Record of Request A, G, or NATO Dependent Employment Authorization or Change/Adjustment To/From A, G, or NATO Status.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-566; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This information collection facilitates processing of applications for benefits filed by dependents of diplomats, international organizations, and NATO personnel by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Department of State.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-566 is 5,800 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.42 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 8,236 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $710,500.

    Dated: March 18, 2015. Laura Dawkins, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06636 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-OIA-17652; PIN00IO14.XI0000] Submission of U.S. Nomination to the World Heritage List AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Interior is submitting a nomination to the World Heritage List for the “Key Works of Modern Architecture by Frank Lloyd Wright,” consisting of 10 separate properties, located in seven states: Unity Temple, Oak Park, Illinois; Frederick C. Robie House, Chicago, Illinois; Taliesin, Spring Green, Wisconsin; Hollyhock House, Los Angeles, California; Fallingwater, Mill Run, Pennsylvania; Herbert and Katherine Jacobs House, Madison, Wisconsin; Taliesin West, Scottsdale, Arizona; Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, New York; Price Tower, Bartlesville, Oklahoma; and the Marin County Civic Center, San Rafael, California. This is the third notice required by the Department of the Interior's World Heritage Program regulations.

    DATES:

    The World Heritage Committee will likely consider the nomination at its 40th annual session in mid-2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephen Morris, Chief, Office of International Affairs at 202-354-1803 or Jonathan Putnam, International Cooperation Specialist at 202-354-1809. Complete information about U.S. participation in the World Heritage Program and the process used to develop the U.S. World Heritage Tentative List is posted on the National Park Service, Office of International Affairs Web site at: http://www.nps.gov/oia/topics/worldheritage/worldheritage.htm.

    To request paper copies of documents discussed in this notice, please contact April Brooks, Office of International Affairs, National Park Service, 1201 Eye Street NW., (0050) Washington, DC 20005; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This constitutes the official notice of the decision by the United States Department of the Interior to submit on behalf of the United States, a nomination to the World Heritage List for the “Key Works of Modern Architecture by Frank Lloyd Wright,” as enumerated in the Summary above, and it is a component of the Third Notice referred to in 36 CFR 73.7(j) of the World Heritage Program regulations (36 CFR part 73).

    The nomination is being submitted through the U.S. Department of State to the World Heritage Centre of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for consideration by the World Heritage Committee, which will likely occur at the Committee's 40th annual session in mid-2016.

    This serial nomination has been selected from the U.S. World Heritage Tentative List, where it was listed as “Frank Lloyd Wright Buildings.” The Tentative List consists of properties that appear to qualify for World Heritage status and which may be considered for nomination by the United States to the World Heritage List. The Frank Lloyd Wright Buildings nomination on the Tentative List was subsequently amended in July 2011 to add the Herbert and Katherine Jacobs House to the group. Although the S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., Administration Building and Research Tower in Racine, Wisconsin, are also included on the Tentative List under “Frank Lloyd Wright Buildings,” they are not being nominated at this time, but may be in the future.

    The U.S. World Heritage Tentative List appeared in a Federal Register notice on December 14, 2010 (73 FR 77901-77903, December 14, 2010), with a request for public comment on possible nominations from the then-13 properties on the Tentative List. A summary of the comments received, the Department of the Interior's responses to them and the Department's decision to request preparation of this nomination appeared in a subsequent Federal Register Notice published on July 14, 2011 (76 FR 41517-41521). These are the First and Second Notices required by 36 CFR 73.7(c) and (f).

    In making the decision to submit this U.S. World Heritage nomination, pursuant to 36 CFR 73.7(h) and (i), the Department's Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks evaluated the draft nomination and the recommendations of the Federal Interagency Panel for World Heritage. He determined that the property meets the prerequisites for nomination by the United States to the World Heritage List that are detailed in 36 CFR part 73. Each property is nationally significant, having been designated by the Department of the Interior as an individual National Historic Landmark. The owners of the properties have concurred in writing with the nomination, and the legal and other protections for each property are documented in the nomination. This nomination appears to meet two of the World Heritage criteria for cultural properties.

    The “Key Works of Modern Architecture by Frank Lloyd Wright” is nominated under World Heritage cultural criteria (i) and (ii), as provided in 36 CFR 73.9(b)(1), as containing many of the most iconic, fully realized, and innovative of the buildings designed by Wright (1867-1959). Located in seven states across the continental United States of America, they respond to more than fifty years of dramatic cultural and technological change with distinctive and highly original modern forms. Designed for a range of urban, suburban, and rural environments and for clients from all backgrounds and walks of life, these works, which include a variety of building types, embody a single-minded vision of architecture as space created for human use, rich in emotion and sensitive to their surroundings. These masterworks, particular to Wright's vision, fused a variety of influences in a way that made a powerful impact on global architecture in the 20th century.

    The properties, both individually and as a group, also meet the World Heritage requirements for integrity and authenticity and have been determined to possess adequate legal and management mechanisms to ensure their conservation pursuant to 36 CFR 73.9(b)(2).

    The World Heritage List is an international list of cultural and natural properties nominated by the signatories to the World Heritage Convention (1972). The United States was the prime architect of the Convention, an international treaty for the preservation of natural and cultural heritage sites of global significance proposed by President Richard M. Nixon in 1972, and the U.S. was the first nation to ratify it. The World Heritage Committee, composed of representatives of 21 nations elected as the governing body of the World Heritage Convention, makes the final decisions on which nominations to accept for inclusion on the World Heritage List at its annual meeting each summer. The United States has served four terms on the World Heritage Committee, but is not currently a member.

    There are 1,007 World Heritage sites in 161 of the 191 signatory countries. The United States has 22 sites inscribed on the World Heritage List.

    U.S. participation and the role of the Department of the Interior are authorized by Section 401 of Title IV of the Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980, (now codified at 54 U.S.C. 307101), and conducted by the Department through the National Park Service in accordance with the regulations at 36 CFR part 73 which implement the Convention pursuant to this law. The Department of the Interior has the lead role for the U.S. Government in the implementation of the Convention; the National Park Service serves as the principal technical agency within the Department for World Heritage matters and manages all or parts of 19 of the 22 U.S. World Heritage Sites.

    The World Heritage Committee's Operational Guidelines require participating nations to provide tentative lists, which aid in evaluating properties for the World Heritage List on a comparative international basis and help the Committee to schedule its work. The current U.S. Tentative List was transmitted to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre on January 24, 2008.

    Neither inclusion in the Tentative List nor inscription as a World Heritage Site imposes legal restrictions on owners or neighbors of sites, nor does it give the United Nations any management authority or ownership rights in U.S. World Heritage Sites, which continue to be subject only to U.S. federal and local laws, as applicable.

    Dated: March 3, 2015. Michael J. Bean, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06663 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-NERO-CHHO-17341; PPNCCHOHS0-PPMPSPD1Z.YM0000] Request for Nominations for the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for nominations.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, is seeking nominations for individuals to be considered for appointment to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission. The Commission was established by section 6 of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act (16 U.S.C. 410y-4), and terminated January 8, 2011. The Commission has been extended by Public Law 113-178 and the new termination date is September 26, 2024.

    DATES:

    Written nominations must be received by May 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send nominations to: Kevin Brandt, Superintendent and Designated Federal Official, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, 1850 Dual Highway, Suite 100, Hagerstown, Maryland, 21740-6620, or by email [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kevin Brandt, Superintendent and Designated Federal Official, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, 1850 Dual Highway, Suite 100, Hagerstown, Maryland, 21740-6620, or by email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the Commission is to meet and consult with the Secretary of the Interior, or the Secretary's designee, on general policies and specific matters related to the administration and development of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park.

    Nominations should describe and document the proposed member's qualifications for membership to the Commission, and include a resume listing his or her full name, title, address, telephone, email, and fax number.

    The Commission shall be composed of 19 members appointed by the Secretary for 5-year terms as follows: (1) Eight members to be appointed from recommendations submitted by the boards of commissioners or the county councils, as the case may be, of Montgomery, Frederick, Washington, and Allegany Counties, Maryland, of which two members shall be appointed from recommendations submitted by each such board or council, as the case may be; (2) Eight members to be appointed from recommendations submitted by the Governor of the State of Maryland, the Governor of the State of West Virginia, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Commissioner of the District of Columbia, of which two members shall be appointed from recommendations submitted by each such Governor or Commissioner, as the case may be; and (3) Three members to be appointed by the Secretary, one of whom shall be designated Chairman of the Commission and two of who shall be members of regularly constituted conservation organizations.

    Some Commissioners may serve as Special Governmental Employees, which may include the completion of an annual financial disclosure report and annual ethics training.

    Members of the Commission will receive no pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of their service on the Commission. However, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Commission as approved by the Designated Federal Officer (DFO), members may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in Government service are allowed such expenses under section 5703 of title 5 of the United State Code.

    Individuals who are Federally registered lobbyists are ineligible to serve on all FACA and non-FACA boards, committees, or councils in an individual capacity. The term “individual capacity” refers to individuals who are appointed to exercise their own individual best judgment on behalf of the government, such as when they are designated Special Government Employees, rather than being appointed to represent a particular interest.

    Seeking Nominations for Membership

    We are seeking nominations for commission members in the following category: Three members to be appointed by the Secretary, one of whom shall be designated Chairman of the Commission and two of whom shall be members of regularly constituted conservation organizations. Nominations should include a resume providing an adequate description of the nominee's qualifications, including information that would enable the Department of the Interior to make an informed decision regarding meeting the membership requirements of the Commission, and to permit the Department to contact a potential member.

    Meetings may take place at such times as designated by the DFO. Members are expected to make every effort to attend all meetings. Members may not appoint deputies or alternates.

    Dated: February 20, 2015. Alma Ripps, Chief, Office of Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06666 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-EE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [DR.5B811.IA000913] Renewal of Agency Information Collection for Tribal Energy Resource Agreements AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of submission to OMB.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for approval for the collection of information titled “25 CFR 224, Tribal Energy Resource Agreements” (TERAs) under the Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development Office (IEED). This information collection is currently authorized by OMB Control Number 1076-0167, which expires March 31, 2015.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at the Office of Management and Budget, by facsimile to (202) 395-5806 or you may send an email to: [email protected] Please send a copy of your comments to Mr. Stephen Manydeeds, Chief, Division of Energy and Mineral Development, 13922 Denver West Parkway, Suite 200, Lakewood, CO 80401; facsimile: (303) 969-5273; email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Stephen Manydeeds, telephone: (720) 407-0600. You may review the information collection request online at http://www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to review Department of the Interior collections under review by OMB.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    The Energy Policy Act of 2005, 25 U.S.C. 3504 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to approve individual Tribal Energy Resource Agreements (TERAs). The intent of these agreements is to promote tribal oversight and management of energy resource development on tribal lands and further the goal of Indian self-determination. A TERA offers a tribe an alternative for developing energy-related business agreements and awarding leases and granting rights-of-way for energy facilities without having to obtain further approval from the Secretary.

    This information collection conducted under TERA regulations at 25 CFR 224 will allow IEED to determine the capacity of tribes to manage the development of energy resources on tribal lands. This information collection:

    • Enables IEED to engage in a consultation process with tribes that is designed to foster optimal pre-planning of development proposals and speed up the review and approval process for TERA agreements;

    • Provides wide public notice and opportunity for review of TERA agreements by the public, industry, and government agencies;

    • Ensures that the public has an avenue for review of the performance of tribes in implementing a TERA;

    • Creates a process for preventing damage to sensitive resources as well as ensuring that the public has fully communicated with the tribe in the petition process;

    • Ensures that a tribe is fully aware of any attempt by the Department of the Interior to resume management authority over energy resources on tribal lands; and

    • Ensures that the tribal government fully endorses any relinquishment of a TERA.

    II. Request for Comments

    On January 13, 2015, the BIA published a notice announcing the renewal of this information collection and provided a 60-day comment period in the Federal Register (80 FR 1662). There were no comments received in response to this notice.

    The BIA requests your comments on this collection concerning: (a) The necessity of this information collection 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 (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents.

    Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.

    It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the ADDRESSES section. Before including your address, phone number, email address or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1076-0167.

    Title: 25 CFR 224, Tribal Energy Resource Agreements.

    Brief Description of Collection: Submission of this information is required for Indian tribes to apply for, implement, reassume, or rescind a TERA that has been entered into in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and 25 CFR 224. This collection also requires the tribe to notify the public of certain actions. A response is required to obtain a benefit.

    Type of Review: Extension without change of currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Federally recognized Indian tribes.

    Number of Respondents: 14.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Estimated Time per Response: Ranges from 32 hours to 1,080 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 10,752 hours.

    Estimated Total Non-hour Cost Burden: $48,200.

    Dated: March 18, 2015. Elizabeth K. Appel, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06670 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-G1-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLNML00000 L12200000.DF0000 15XL1109AF] Notice of Public Meeting, Las Cruces District Resource Advisory Council Meeting, New Mexico AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM), Las Cruces District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.

    DATES:

    The RAC will meet on April 22, 2015, at the BLM Las Cruces District Office, 1800 Marquess Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico from 9 a.m.-4 p.m. The public may send written comments to the RAC at the BLM Las Cruces District Office, 1800 Marquess Street, Las Cruces, NM 88005.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rena Gutierrez, BLM Las Cruces District, 1800 Marquess Street, Las Cruces, NM 88005, 575-525-4338. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8229 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The 10-member Las Cruces District RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in New Mexico. Planned agenda items include a welcome and introduction of new Council members, and presentations and discussions related to the new Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument; the Dripping Springs/Baylor Road improvement project, the Prehistoric Trackways National Monument Proposed Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement; areas of critical environmental concern relevance and importance criteria; and issues related to the Gila River area.

    A half-hour public comment period during which the public may address the RAC is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. All RAC meetings are open to the public. Depending on the number of individuals wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited.

    Melanie Barnes, Acting Deputy State Director, Lands and Resources.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06669 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLNVC00000.L16100000.DP0000 LXSS155F0000 MO# 4500076625] Notice of Extension of the Public Comment Period for the Notice of Availability of the Carson City District Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Nevada AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published a Notice of Availability for the Carson City District Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in the Federal Register on November 28, 2014, 79 FR 70892, and announced the availability of these documents. In response to multiple requests, the BLM is extending the public comment period for the Draft RMP and Draft EIS until April 27, 2015.

    DATES:

    The comment period is extended to April 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments related to the Carson City District Draft RMP/Draft EIS may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Web site: http://on.doi.gov/1uYBNGT. Email: [email protected] Fax: 775-885-6147. Mail: BLM Carson City District, Attn: CCD RMP, 5665 Morgan Mill Rd., Carson City, NV 89701. Copies of the Carson City District Draft RMP/Draft EIS are available in the Carson City District Office at the above address or on the following Web site http://on.doi.gov/1uYBNGT.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colleen Sievers, RMP Project Manager, 775-885-6000; 5665 Morgan Mill Rd., Carson City, NV 89701; [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Carson City District Draft RMP/Draft EIS would replace the existing 2001 Carson City Field Office Consolidated RMP. The Draft RMP/Draft EIS was developed through a collaborative planning process. The Carson City District Draft RMP/Draft EIS decision area encompasses approximately 4.8 million acres of public land administered by the BLM Carson City District in portions of 11 counties within 2 States (Washoe, Storey, Carson City, Douglas, Lyon, Churchill, Mineral, and Nye counties within Nevada; and Alpine, Plumas, and Lassen counties within California). It does not include private lands, State lands, Indian reservations, Federal lands not administered by BLM. The Carson City District Draft RMP/Draft EIS includes goals, objectives and management actions for protecting and preserving natural resources which includes air quality, soil and water resources, vegetation, fish and wildlife, special status species, wild horses and burros, wildland fire management, cultural and paleontological resources, visual resource values, and lands with wilderness characteristics. Multiple resource uses are addressed which include management and forage allocations for livestock grazing; delineation of lands open, closed, or subject to special stipulations or mitigation measures for minerals development; recreation and travel management designations; management of lands and realty actions, including delineation of avoidance and exclusion areas applicable to rights-of-ways (ROWs), land tenure adjustments, and solar and wind energy development. The planning effort will consider establishment of a national trail management corridor for the congressionally-designated California and Pony Express National Historic Trails. Eligible river segments will be evaluated for suitability as components of the National Wild and Scenic River System and 23 new Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) are proposed. The ACECs are proposed to protect natural and cultural resource values and traditional Native American use areas.

    Authority:

    40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2.

    Marci L. Todd, Acting State Director, Nevada.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06605 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Geological Survey [USGS-GX15GL00DT7ST00] Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments AGENCY:

    U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a revision of a currently approved information collection (1028-0087).

    SUMMARY:

    We (the U.S. Geological Survey) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This collection is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2015.

    DATES:

    To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive them on or before May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this information collection to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 807, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); (703) 648-7197 (fax); or [email protected] (email). Please reference `Information Collection 1028-0087, `National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program' in all correspondence.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Betty Adrian at (303) 202-4828 or by mail at U.S. Geological Survey, Box 25046, MS 975, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    Section 351 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs the Secretary of the Interior, through the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, as follows, “The Secretary shall carry out a National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program in accordance with this section—

    (1) To archive geologic, geophysical, and engineering data, maps, well logs, and samples;

    (2) To provide a national catalog of such archival material; and

    (3) To provide technical and financial assistance related to the archival material.”

    The Plan outlines program goals and recommends implementation strategies. An action item in the plan is to “begin interactions with State geological surveys and other DOI agencies that maintain geological and geophysical data and samples to address their preservation and data rescue needs.” In response, the USGS is requesting each state that elects to participate in the program to:

    (1) Inventory their current collections and data preservation needs to provide a snapshot of the diversity of scientific collections held, supported, or used by State geological surveys. This inventory of current collections will form the foundation of the National Catalog;

    (2) Build the National Catalog by providing site-specific metadata for items in inventoried collections. Focus on site-specific sample data allows broad national coverage with content useful to a wide variety of users. The types of sites cataloged will be determined by the holdings of participating states; and

    (3) In FY 2010 and beyond, depending on appropriations, states would be invited to propose projects that address other priorities identified in the Implementation Plan for the National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program, including: (a) Digital infrastructure; (b) Metadata for items in data collections; and (c) Special data rescue needs.

    Furthermore, annual data preservation priorities are provided in the Program Announcement as guidance for applicants to consider when submitting proposals. its inception in 2007, NGGDPP has awarded 44 states with $4,585,849 which, when matched or exceeded by the states, amounts to over $9M invested in the rescue and preservation efforts. This notice concerns the collection of information that is sufficient and relevant to evaluate and select proposals for funding. We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection.” Responses are voluntary. No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked. We intend to release the project abstracts and identify primary investigators for awarded/funded projects only.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1028-0087.

    Form Number: NA.

    Title: National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program (NGGDPP)

    Type of Request: Notice of an extension of a currently approved information collection (1028-0087).

    Affected Public: All State Geological Surveys will have the opportunity to apply for matching Federal funds.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary, but necessary to receive benefits.

    Frequency of Collection: Annually.

    Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses: 34.

    Estimated Time per Response: We estimate the public reporting burden averages 36 hours per response. This includes time (1) to write and review the proposal and submit it through www.grants.gov and (2) prepare and submit the final technical report.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 1224.

    Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: There are no “non-hour cost” burdens associated with this IC.

    Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number and current expiration date.

    III. Request for Comments

    We are soliciting comments as to: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) how to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Please note that the comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your personal mailing address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Betty M. Adrian, Program Coordinator, National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06682 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4311-AM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-392] Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Patheon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    DATES:

    Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class and applicants therefore may file written comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Request for hearings should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.

    In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on December 11, 2014, Patheon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2110 E. Galbraith Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 45237 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of gamma hydroxybutyric acid (2010), a basic class of nonnarcotic controlled substance in schedule I.

    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substance for distribution to its customers.

    Dated: March 9, 2015. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06733 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-392] Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Penick Corporation ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    DATES:

    Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Request for hearings should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart, R.

    In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on February 26, 2014, Penick Corporation, 33 Industrial Park Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:

    Controlled substance Schedule Cocaine (9041) II Codeine (9050) II Dihydrocodeine (9120) II Oxycodone (9143) II Hydromorphone (9150) II Ecgonine (9180) II Hydrocodone (9193) II Morphine (9300) II Oripavine (9330) II Thebaine (9333) II Opium tincture (9630) II Oxymorphone (9652) II

    The company plans to manufacture the above-listed controlled substances as bulk controlled substance intermediates for distribution to its customers.

    Dated: March 9, 2015. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06734 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Royalty Board [Docket No. 14-CRB-0006 DART SR (CO/FA) 2013] Distribution of the 2013 Digital Audio Recording Technology Royalty Funds AGENCY:

    Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.

    ACTION:

    Notice announcing commencement of proceeding with request for Petitions to Participate and comments on intention to conduct paper proceeding.

    SUMMARY:

    The Copyright Royalty Board is announcing the commencement of a proceeding to determine the distribution of the digital audio recording technology royalty fees in the 2013 Sound Recordings Fund (Copyright Owners and Featured Recording Artists Subfunds). The Board is also announcing the date by which a party who wishes to participate in this proceeding must file its Petition to Participate and the accompanying $150 filing fee, if applicable. Finally, the Board is announcing the Copyright Royalty Judges' intention to conduct a paper proceeding.

    DATES:

    Petitions to Participate, comments on the intention to conduct a paper proceeding, and applicable filing fee are due no later than April 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    An original, five copies, and an electronic copy in Portable Document Format (PDF) on a CD of the Petition to Participate, along with the $150 filing fee, if applicable, may be delivered to the Copyright Royalty Board by either mail or hand delivery. Petitions to Participate and the $150 filing fee may not be delivered by an overnight delivery service other than the U.S. Postal Service Express Mail. If by mail (including overnight delivery), Petitions to Participate, along with the $150 filing fee, must be addressed to: Copyright Royalty Board, P.O. 70977, Washington, DC 20024-0977. If hand-delivered by a private party, Petitions to Participate, along with the $150 filing fee, must be brought to the Library of Congress, James Madison Memorial Building, LM-401, 101 Independence Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20559-6000. If delivered by a commercial courier, Petitions to Participate, along with the $150 filing fee, must be delivered to the Congressional Courier Acceptance Site, located at 2nd and D Street, NE., Washington, DC. The envelope must be addressed to: Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress, James Madison Memorial Building, LM-403, 101 Independence Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20559-6000.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    LaKeshia Keys, CRB Program Specialist. Telephone: (202) 707-7658 or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (the “AHRA”), Public Law 102-563, requires manufacturers and importers to pay royalties on digital audio recording devices and media that are distributed in the United States. 17 U.S.C. 1003. These royalties are deposited with the Copyright Office for further distribution among interested copyright parties by the Copyright Royalty Judges (“Judges”), provided that the interested copyright parties file a claim with the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) each year during the months of January and February. 17 U.S.C. 1005, 1007.

    The AHRA provides that the royalties are divided between two funds: the Sound Recordings Fund and the Musical Works Fund. The Sound Recordings Fund receives 662/3% of the royalties and the Musical Works Fund receives the remaining 331/3%. These fees are allocated further to specific subfunds.

    The Sound Recordings Fund consists of four subfunds: the Featured Artists Subfund, the Copyright Owners Subfund, the Nonfeatured Musicians Subfund, and the Nonfeatured Vocalists Subfund. The royalty fees allocated to the Sound Recordings Fund are divided among these four subfunds according to the percentages set out in section 1006 of the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. 1006(b)(1).1 Distribution of these fees may occur in one of two ways. The interested copyright parties within each subfund may either negotiate the terms of a settlement as to the division of royalty funds, or the Judges may conduct a proceeding to determine the distribution of the royalties that remain in controversy in each subfund. See 17 U.S.C. 1006(c).

    1 Similarly, the statute prescribes that the royalty fees allocated to the Musical Works Fund be divided equally between two subfunds, the Publishers Subfund and the Writers Subfund. 17 U.S.C. 1006(b)(2).

    On August 18, 2014, the CRB received a motion from the Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies (AARC) asking the Judges to authorize a partial distribution of 98% of the 2013 digital audio recording technology (“DART”) Sound Recordings Fund (Copyright Owners and Featured Recording Artists subfunds). The CRB published notice of the settlement and a solicitation of comments in the Federal Register on October 6, 2014.2 On December 19, 2014, the Judges granted the motion, finding that there was no reasonable objection to AARC's proposed partial distribution. See Order Granting AARC's Request for Partial Distribution of Royalties from the 2013 DART Sound Recordings Fund (Copyright Owners and Featured Recording Artists Subfunds) at 3-4 (December 19, 2014 Order). The Judges now commence a proceeding to resolve any existing controversies with respect to the 2013 DART Sound Recordings Fund (Copyright Owners and Featured Recording Artists subfunds).

    2 79 FR 60185.

    Commencement of Proceeding

    Consistent with 17 U.S.C. 804(b)(8), the Judges determine that a controversy exists as to the distribution of the 2013 DART Sound Recordings Fund. The Judges make this finding based on the fact that AARC notified the Judges that it failed to reach settlements with three claimants to the 2013 Featured Recording Artists Subfund and that it failed to reach settlements with five claimants to the 2013 Copyright Owners Subfund. December 19, 2014 Order at 1. In the December 19, 2014 Order, the Judges ordered the parties to notify the Judges whether any remaining disputes in this matter have been resolved. Id. at 4. To date, the Judges have not received notification that any of these controversies have been resolved.

    Intention to Conduct a Paper Proceeding

    In accordance with Section 803(b)(5)(B) of the Copyright Act, the Judges find it appropriate to conduct a paper proceeding in this matter in light of the relatively modest amount of royalties in dispute and the anticipated small number of non-settling claimants. In such proceedings, the Judges determine issues solely on the basis of the filing of a written direct statement by each participant, a response of an opposing participant, and one additional response from the participant. 17 U.S.C. 803(b)(5). Any party wishing to comment on the Judges' intention to conduct a paper proceeding should include such comments in its Petition to Participate.

    Petitions to Participate

    Petitions to Participate must provide all of the information required by 37 CFR 351.1(b)(2). Petitions to Participate submitted by interested parties whose claims do not exceed $1,000 3 must contain a statement that the party will not seek a distribution of more than $1,000. No filing fee is required for these parties. Interested parties with claims exceeding $1,000, however, must submit a filing fee of $150 with their Petition to Participate or it will be rejected. Cash will not be accepted; therefore, parties must pay the filing fee with a check or money order made payable to the “Copyright Royalty Board.” If a check is returned for lack of sufficient funds, the corresponding Petition to Participate will be dismissed.

    3 The Copyright Royalty Judge Program Technical Corrections Act, Public Law 109-303, changed the amount from $10,000 to $1,000.

    Further procedural matters, including scheduling, will be addressed after Petitions to Participate and comments, if any, on the Judges' intention to conduct a paper proceeding, have been received.

    In accordance with 37 CFR 350.2 (Representation), only attorneys who are members of the bar in one or more states and in good standing will be allowed to represent parties before the Judges, unless the party is an individual who represents herself or himself.

    Participants should conform filed electronic documents to the Judges' Guidelines for Electronic Documents, available online at www.loc.gov/crb/docs/Guidelinesfor_Electronic_Documents.pdf.

    Dated: March 18, 2015. Suzanne M. Barnett, Chief U.S. Copyright Royalty Judge.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06678 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-72-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 requirements 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 79 FR 69883, 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; (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.

    It is not permissible for NSF to 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: Survey of Earned Doctorates.

    OMB Control Number: 3145-0019.

    Summary of Collection: The authority to collect information for the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) is established under the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, Public Law 507 (42 U.S.C. 1862), Section 3(a) (6), which directs the NSF “. . . to provide a central clearinghouse for the collection, interpretation, and analysis of data on scientific and engineering resources and to provide a source of information for policy formation by other agencies of the federal government.” More recently, the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) was established within NSF by Section 505 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 and given a broader mandate to collect data related to STEM education, the science and engineering workforce, and U.S. competitiveness in science, engineering, technology, and R&D. The SED is part of an integrated survey system that fulfills the education and workforce components of this mission.

    The SED has been conducted annually since 1958 and is jointly sponsored by six Federal agencies (NSF, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Endowment for the Humanities, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration) in order to avoid duplication of effort in collecting such data. It is an accurate, timely source of information on an important national resource—highly educated individuals. Data are obtained via Web survey or paper questionnaire from each person earning a research doctorate at the time they receive the degree. Graduate schools help distribute the SED to their graduating doctorate recipients. Data are collected on the doctorate recipient's field of specialty, educational background, sources of financial support in graduate school, debt level, postgraduation plans for employment, and demographic characteristics.

    The survey will be collected in conformance with the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, and the Privacy Act of 1974. Responses from individuals are voluntary. NSF will ensure that all individually identifiable information collected will be kept strictly confidential and will be used for research or statistical purposes, analyzing data, and preparing scientific reports and articles.

    Need and Use of the Information: The Federal government, universities, researchers, and others use the information extensively. NSF, as the lead agency, publishes statistics from the survey in several reports, but primarily in the annual publication series, “Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities.” These reports are available on the Web. NSF uses this information to prepare congressionally mandated reports such as Science and Engineering Indicators and Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals.

    Number of Respondents: 52,000.

    Frequency of Responses: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 28,800.

    Dated: March 19, 2015. Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06672 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-313; NRC-2015-0069] Entergy Operations, Inc., Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Exemption; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an exemption in response to a March 20, 2014, request from Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the licensee), from the requirements to use Charpy V-notch (CV) and drop weight-based methodology to determine initial nil-ductility reference temperature (RTNDT) for use in evaluating the integrity of Linde 80 weld materials in the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) beltline at Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO), Unit 1. This exemption would allow the licensee to use an alternate methodology to incorporate fracture toughness test data to determine RTNDT values for use in the evaluation of the RPV beltline weld material integrity in support of the development of updated pressure-temperature limit curves.

    DATES:

    March 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0069 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-2015-0069. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    • NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-39