Federal Register Vol. 80, No.60,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 60 (March 30, 2015)

Page Range16547-16959
FR Document

80_FR_60
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 16577 - Oil and Gas; Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian LandsPDF
80 FR 16577 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Establishment of the Multi-State Plan Program for the Affordable Insurance Exchanges; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 16693 - Outer Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, Oil and Gas Lease Sales, Western Planning Area Lease Sale 248 MMAA 104000PDF
80 FR 16645 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records; Impact Evaluation of Training in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for BehaviorPDF
80 FR 16626 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 16723 - Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer ProtectionPDF
80 FR 16696 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 16703 - Submission of Information Collections for OMB Review; Comment Request; Reportable Events; Notice of Failure To Make Required ContributionsPDF
80 FR 16626 - Final Updated Framework for the National System of Marine Protected Areas and Response to CommentsPDF
80 FR 16628 - Interagency Working Group on the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments ActPDF
80 FR 16577 - Technical Regulation: Removal of Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention and Treatment Act Implementing RegulationsPDF
80 FR 16684 - Establishment of the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Council MembershipPDF
80 FR 16622 - Notice of Decision To Authorize the Importation of Fresh Tejocote Fruit From Mexico Into the Continental United StatesPDF
80 FR 16620 - Notice of Decision To Authorize the Importation of Fresh Figs From Mexico Into the Continental United StatesPDF
80 FR 16564 - Approval and Promulgation of Federal Implementation Plan for Oil and Natural Gas Well Production Facilities; Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation), North Dakota; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 16571 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Montana Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for BillingsPDF
80 FR 16688 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver of Inadmissibility, Form I-601A; Revision of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
80 FR 16621 - Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Small Lots of SeedPDF
80 FR 16703 - Application for a License to Export High-Enriched UraniumPDF
80 FR 16612 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources for the Prevention of Significant DeteriorationPDF
80 FR 16592 - Petition To Define Alternatives to Procedures That May Cause Pain or Distress and To Establish Standards Regarding Consideration of These AlternativesPDF
80 FR 16686 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 16694 - Endangered Species; Marine Mammals; Receipt of Applications for PermitPDF
80 FR 16593 - Livestock Marketing FacilitiesPDF
80 FR 16660 - Proposed Subsequent ArrangementPDF
80 FR 16648 - Applications for New Awards; Investing in Innovation Fund-Development GrantsPDF
80 FR 16616 - Notice of Determination of the African Horse Sickness Status of Saudi ArabiaPDF
80 FR 16621 - U.S. Department of Agriculture Stakeholder Workshop on CoexistencePDF
80 FR 16674 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New UsesPDF
80 FR 16672 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal and Comment Request; Health and Safety Data Reporting, Submission of Lists and Copies of Health and Safety StudiesPDF
80 FR 16697 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Vehicle-Mounted Elevating and Rotating Work Platforms StandardPDF
80 FR 16699 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Acrylonitrile StandardPDF
80 FR 16661 - Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
80 FR 16672 - California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of Technical ConferencePDF
80 FR 16672 - California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of FERC Staff AttendancePDF
80 FR 16662 - East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Loudon Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental IssuesPDF
80 FR 16643 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 16675 - Registration Review; Pesticide Dockets Opened for Review and CommentPDF
80 FR 16666 - Hooper Springs Transmission ProjectPDF
80 FR 16630 - Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper ReviewPDF
80 FR 16634 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India and Thailand: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative ReviewsPDF
80 FR 16691 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Entry/Immediate Delivery Application and ACE Cargo ReleasePDF
80 FR 16662 - City of Alexandria, Louisiana; Notice of FilingPDF
80 FR 16668 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 16645 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 16644 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 16678 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
80 FR 16677 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
80 FR 16679 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
80 FR 16678 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
80 FR 16923 - Privacy Act of 1974; Republication of Systems of Records NoticesPDF
80 FR 16725 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 16632 - Amended Order Temporarily Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
80 FR 16729 - Voluntary Service National Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 16728 - Advisory Committee on Women Veterans; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 16697 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air ActPDF
80 FR 16595 - Rulemaking Petition: Federal ContractorsPDF
80 FR 16594 - Rulemaking Petition: Administrative Fines Program and Commission FormsPDF
80 FR 16631 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 16643 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 16682 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking ActivitiesPDF
80 FR 16729 - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 16683 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 16700 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Onsite Consultation AgreementsPDF
80 FR 16701 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Slings StandardPDF
80 FR 16729 - Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 16667 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 16670 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 16720 - Model Specifications for Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices (BAIIDs)PDF
80 FR 16681 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 16682 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 16682 - Notice of Proposals to Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking ActivitiesPDF
80 FR 16625 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingsPDF
80 FR 16630 - Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
80 FR 16683 - Advisory Committee on Interdisciplinary, Community-Based Linkages; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 16669 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
80 FR 16670 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 16697 - Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent DecreePDF
80 FR 16642 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 16692 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 16689 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 16695 - Certain Lithium Metal Oxide Cathode Materials, Lithium-Ion Batteries for Power Tool Products Containing the Same, and Power Tools Products With Lithium-Ion Batteries Containing Same; Institution of InvestigationPDF
80 FR 16624 - Meeting Notice of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory BoardPDF
80 FR 16671 - Modesto Irrigation District Turlock Irrigation District v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of ComplaintPDF
80 FR 16664 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed UTICA Access Project and Request for Comments on Environmental IssuesPDF
80 FR 16661 - Notice of Commission Staff AttendancePDF
80 FR 16660 - Notice of Staff Attendance at South Carolina Regional Transmission Planning MeetingPDF
80 FR 16705 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Extending the Pilot Period for the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Until September 30, 2015PDF
80 FR 16707 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 13-Equities Relating to Pegging InterestPDF
80 FR 16716 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 13 Relating to Pegging InterestPDF
80 FR 16713 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Section 4(c) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws To Increase Qualification Examination FeesPDF
80 FR 16698 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Grant Program Reporting RequirementsPDF
80 FR 16688 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension, With Change, of an Existing Information Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 16719 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 16705 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 16710 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 16564 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri, Control of Sulfur Emissions From Stationary BoilersPDF
80 FR 16611 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri, Control of Sulfur Emissions From Stationary BoilersPDF
80 FR 16573 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Public Participation for Air Quality Permit ApplicationsPDF
80 FR 16611 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Public Participation for Air Quality Permit ApplicationsPDF
80 FR 16623 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 16624 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 16590 - Olives Grown in California; Increased Assessment RatePDF
80 FR 16547 - Marketing Order Regulating the Handling of Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Revision of the Salable Quantity and Allotment Percentage for Class 3 (Native) Spearmint Oil for the 2014-2015 Marketing YearPDF
80 FR 16674 - Notice of a Public Meeting: The National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) Lead and Copper Rule Working Group MeetingPDF
80 FR 16552 - Marketing Order Regulating the Handling of Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Revision of the Salable Quantity and Allotment Percentage for Class 1 (Scotch) Spearmint Oil for the 2014-2015 Marketing YearPDF
80 FR 16579 - Hazardous Materials: Spare Fuel Cell Cartridges Containing Flammable Gas Transported by Aircraft in Passenger and Crew Member Checked BaggagePDF
80 FR 16702 - Determination of Royalty Rates for Secondary Transmissions of Broadcasts by Satellite Carriers and DistributorsPDF
80 FR 16568 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Revision to Allegheny County Rules; Preconstruction Permit Requirements-Nonattainment; New Source ReviewPDF
80 FR 16553 - Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited AirplanesPDF
80 FR 16648 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Study on Sustaining the Positive Effects of PreschoolPDF
80 FR 16724 - Petition for Waiver of CompliancePDF
80 FR 16681 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewal; Comment Request (3064-0163)PDF
80 FR 16727 - Petition for Waiver of CompliancePDF
80 FR 16725 - Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or Modification of a Railroad Signal SystemPDF
80 FR 16680 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewal; Comment Request (3064-0124)PDF
80 FR 16687 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 16606 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 16608 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
80 FR 16583 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 32PDF
80 FR 16562 - Mississippi Abandoned Mine Land PlanPDF
80 FR 16576 - Withdrawal of Partial Exemption for Certain Chemical SubstancesPDF
80 FR 16595 - Federal Credit Union Ownership of Fixed AssetsPDF
80 FR 16603 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH) HelicoptersPDF
80 FR 16566 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Mississippi Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF
80 FR 16558 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 16555 - Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited AirplanesPDF
80 FR 16731 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Incentive Program-Stage 3PDF
80 FR 16804 - 2015 Edition Health Information Technology (Health IT) Certification Criteria, 2015 Edition Base Electronic Health Record (EHR) Definition, and ONC Health IT Certification Program ModificationsPDF

Issue

80 60 Monday, March 30, 2015 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Marketing Orders: Handling of Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West, etc., 16547-16553 2015-07110 2015-07114 PROPOSED RULES Assessment Rates: Olives Grown in California, 16590-16592 2015-07116 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 16623-16625 2015-07119 2015-07120 Meetings: National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board, 16624 2015-07145
Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service PROPOSED RULES Livestock Marketing Facilities, 16593-16594 2015-07217 Petitions: Definition of Alternatives to Procedures That May Cause Pain or Distress and to Establish Standards Regarding Consideration of These Alternatives, 16592-16593 2015-07221 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals Importation of Small Lots of Seed, 16621-16622 2015-07224 Determination of the African Horse Sickness Status of Saudi Arabia, 16616-16620 2015-07212 Imports: Figs from Mexico, 16620-16621 2015-07231 Tejocote Fruit from Mexico, 16622-16623 2015-07234 Meetings: U.S. Department of Agriculture Stakeholder Workshop on Coexistence, 16621 2015-07210 Bonneville Bonneville Power Administration NOTICES Records of Decision: Hooper Springs Transmission Project, 16666-16667 2015-07199 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Electronic Health Record Incentive Program Stage 3, 16732-16804 2015-06685 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 16686-16688 2015-07089 2015-07219 Children Children and Families Administration RULES Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention and Treatment Act Implementing Regulations Removal, 16577-16579 2015-07238 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 16683 2015-07168 Commerce Commerce Department See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 16643-16644 2015-07201 Copyright Royalty Board Copyright Royalty Board NOTICES Royalty Rates for Secondary Transmissions of Broadcasts by Satellite Carriers and Distributors, 16702-16703 2015-07107 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 16644-16645 2015-07191 2015-07193 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Study on Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool, 16648 2015-07103 Applications for New Awards: Investing in Innovation Fund -- Development Grants, 16648-16660 2015-07213 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 16645-16648 2015-07321 Energy Department Energy Department See

Bonneville Power Administration

See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Agreements: Subsequent Arrangements, 16660-16661 2015-07214
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality Federal Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Oil and Natural Gas Well Production Facilities; Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation), North Dakota; Correction, 16564 2015-07230 Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Mississippi Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 16566-16568 2015-06765 Missouri, Control of Sulfur Emissions from Stationary Boilers, 16564-16566 2015-07126 Montana Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Billings, 16571-16573 2015-07227 Pennsylvania; Revision to Allegheny County Rules; Preconstruction Permit Requirements - Nonattainment New Source Review, 16568-16571 2015-07106 Texas; Public Participation for Air Quality Permit Applications, 16573-16576 2015-07124 Withdrawal of Partial Exemption for Certain Chemical Substances, 16576-16577 2015-06933 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Missouri, Control of Sulfur Emissions from Stationary Boilers, 16611 2015-07125 Texas; Public Participation for Air Quality Permit Applications, 16611-16612 2015-07123 West Virginia; Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 16612-16615 2015-07222 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Health and Safety Data Reporting, Submission of Lists and Copies of Health and Safety Studies, 16672-16673 2015-07208 Meetings: The National Drinking Water Advisory Council Lead and Copper Rule Working Group Meeting, 16674-16675 2015-07112 Pesticide Products: Applications for New Uses, 16674 2015-07209 Registration Reviews; Pesticide Dockets, 16675-16677 2015-07200 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Airplanes, 16555-16557 2015-06751 Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes, 16553-16555 2015-07104 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 16558-16561 2015-06753 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Helicopters, Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH, 16603-16606 2015-06806 Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 16608-16611 2015-07072 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 16606-16608 2015-07081 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 16677-16680 2015-07187 2015-07188 2015-07189 2015-07190 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 16680-16681 2015-07096 2015-07101 Federal Election Federal Election Commission PROPOSED RULES Petitions: Administrative Fines Program and Commission Forms, 16594-16595 2015-07176 Federal Contractors, 16595 2015-07177 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Flood Hazard Determinations, 16689-16693 2015-07147 2015-07148 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC, 16661-16662 2015-07205 Combined Filings, 16667-16671 2015-07152 2015-07153 2015-07163 2015-07164 2015-07194 Complaints: Modesto Irrigation District; Turlock Irrigation District v. Pacific Gas and Electric Co., 16671 2015-07144 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Proposed UTICA Access Project, 16664-16666 2015-07143 East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC, Proposed Loudon Expansion Project, 16662-16664 2015-07202 Filings: Alexandria, LA, 16662 2015-07195 Meetings: California Independent System Operator Corp.; Technical Conferences, 16672 2015-07204 Staff Attendances, 16660-16661, 16672 2015-07141 2015-07142 2015-07203 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 16725-16727 2015-07185 Applications: Railroad Signal System; Discontinuance or Modification, 16725 2015-07099 Petitions for Waivers of Compliance, 16724-16725, 16727-16728 2015-07098 2015-07100 2015-07102 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 16682-16683 2015-07159 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 16681-16682 2015-07160 Proposals to Engage in or to Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities, 16682 2015-07158 2015-07170 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

PROPOSED RULES Health Information Technology Certification Criteria, Base Electronic Health Record Definition, and ONC Health IT Certification Program Modifications, 16804-16921 2015-06612 NOTICES Establishment and Requests for Nominations: Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, 16684-16686 2015-07235
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Interdisciplinary, Community-Based Linkages, 16683-16684 2015-07154 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

See

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Orders Temporarily Denying Export Privileges: Flider Electronics, LLC, 16632-16634 2015-07181 Interior Interior Department See

Land Management Bureau

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

See

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office

NOTICES Permit Applications: Endangered Species; Marine Mammals, 16694-16695 2015-07218
International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea, 16630 2015-07198 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India and Thailand, 16634-16642 2015-07197 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Lithium Metal Oxide Cathode Materials, Lithium-Ion Batteries for Power Tool Products Containing the Same, and Power Tools Products With Lithium-Ion Batteries Containing Same, 16695-16696 2015-07146 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 16696-16697 2015-07282 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Consent Decrees under the Clean Air Act, 16697 2015-07178 Proposed Consent Decrees, 16697 2015-07150 Labor Department Labor Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Acrylonitrile Standard, 16699-16700 2015-07206 Onsite Consultation Agreements, 16700-16701 2015-07167 Slings Standard, 16701-16702 2015-07166 Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Grant Program Reporting Requirements, 16698-16699 2015-07132 Vehicle-Mounted Elevating and Rotating Work Platforms Standard, 16697-16698 2015-07207 Land Land Management Bureau RULES Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands; Oil and Gas, 16577 C1--2015--06658 Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Royalty Board

National Credit National Credit Union Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Credit Union Ownership of Fixed Assets, 16595-16603 2015-06816 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Model Specifications for Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices; Corrections, 16720-16723 2015-07161 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Snapper-Grouper Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 32, 16583-16589 2015-06988 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 16642-16643 2015-07149 Guidance for Industry and Staff: Framework for the National System of Marine Protected Areas, 16626-16628 2015-07262 Meetings: Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 16626, 16631-16632 2015-07175 2015-07310 Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review, 16643 2015-07174 Interagency Working Group on the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act; Webinars, 16628-16630 2015-07247 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 16625-16626 2015-07157 Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 16630-16631 2015-07156 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Export License Applications: High-Enriched Uranium, 16703 2015-07223 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 16924-16959 2015-07186 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau NOTICES Western Planning Area Lease Sale 248: Outer Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, Oil and Gas Lease Sales, 16693-16694 2015-07325 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Reportable Events; Notice of Failure to Make Required Contributions, 16703-16705 2015-07271 Personnel Personnel Management Office RULES Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Establishment of the Multi-State Plan Program for the Affordable Insurance Exchanges; Correction, 16577 2015-07330 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RULES Hazardous Materials: Spare Fuel Cell Cartridges Containing Flammable Gas Transported by Aircraft in Passenger and Crew Member Checked Baggage, 16579-16583 2015-07109 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 16705, 16710-16713, 16719-16720 2015-07127 2015-07128 2015-07129 2015-07130 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 16713-16716 2015-07133 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 16716-16719 2015-07134 NYSE Arca, Inc., 16705-16707 2015-07136 NYSE MKT, LLC, 16707-16710 2015-07135 Surface Mining Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office RULES Mississippi Abandoned Mine Land Plan, 16562-16563 2015-06958 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection, 16723-16724 2015-07292
U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver of Inadmissibility, 16688-16689 2015-07225 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Entry/Immediate Delivery Application and ACE Cargo Release, 16691-16692 2015-07196 Immigration U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 16688 2015-07131 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Women Veterans, 16728-16729 2015-07179 Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee, 16729 2015-07165 Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses, 16729 2015-07169 Voluntary Service National Advisory Committee, 16729-16730 2015-07180 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 16732-16804 2015-06685 Health and Human Services Department, 16804-16921 2015-06612 Part III Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 16924-16959 2015-07186 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 60 Monday, March 30, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 985 [Doc. No. AMS-FV-13-0087; FV14-985-1C IR] Marketing Order Regulating the Handling of Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Revision of the Salable Quantity and Allotment Percentage for Class 3 (Native) Spearmint Oil for the 2014-2015 Marketing Year AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Interim rule with request for comments.

SUMMARY:

This interim rule implements a recommendation from the Spearmint Oil Administrative Committee (Committee) to further revise the quantity of Class 3 (Native) spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2014-2015 marketing year under the Far West spearmint oil marketing order (order). The salable quantity and allotment percentage for Native spearmint oil was initially established at 1,090,821 pounds and 46 percent, respectively, and was subsequently increased to 1,280,561 pounds and 54 percent in a separate rulemaking action. This rule further increases the Native spearmint oil salable quantity to 1,351,704 pounds and the allotment percentage to 57 percent for the 2014-2015 marketing year. The order regulates the handling of spearmint oil produced in the Far West and is locally administered by the Committee, which is comprised of spearmint oil producers operating within the order's area of production. The Committee recommended this rule for the purpose of maintaining orderly marketing conditions in the Far West spearmint oil market.

DATES:

Effective March 30, 2015 and applicable to the 2014-2015 marketing year; comments received by May 29, 2015 will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.

ADDRESSES:

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barry Broadbent, Senior Marketing Specialist, or Gary Olson, Regional Director, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326-2724, Fax: (503) 326-7440, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This interim rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 985 (7 CFR part 985), as amended, regulating the handling of spearmint oil produced in the Far West (Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and designated parts of Nevada and Utah), hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

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

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the provisions of the marketing order now in effect, salable quantities and allotment percentages may be established for classes of spearmint oil produced in the Far West. This rule increases the quantity of Native spearmint oil produced in the Far West that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2014-2015 marketing year, which began on June 1, 2014, and ends on May 31, 2015.

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

This rule revises the quantity of Native spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2014-2015 marketing year under the Far West spearmint oil marketing order. Prior to this rule, the salable quantity and allotment percentage for Native spearmint oil was initially established at 1,090,821 pounds and 46 percent, respectively, in a final rule published May 8, 2014 (79 FR 26359). The salable quantity and allotment percentage was subsequently increased to 1,280,561 pounds and 54 percent in an interim rule published January 22, 2015 (80 FR 3142). This interim rule further increases the Native spearmint oil salable quantity from 1,280,561 pounds to 1,351,704 pounds and the allotment percentage from 54 percent to 57 percent. This action is anticipated to be the last revision of the Native spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage established under the order for the 2014-2015 marketing year.

Under the volume regulation provisions of the order, the Committee meets each year to adopt a marketing policy for the ensuing year. When the Committee's marketing policy considerations indicate a need for limiting the quantity of spearmint oil available to the market to establish or maintain orderly marketing conditions, the Committee submits a recommendation to the Secretary for volume regulation.

Volume regulation under the order is effectuated through the establishment of a salable quantity and allotment percentage applicable to each class of spearmint oil handled in the production area during a marketing year. The salable quantity is the total quantity of each class of oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during a given marketing year. The allotment percentage for each class of oil is derived by dividing the salable quantity by the total industry allotment base for that same class of oil. The total industry allotment base is the aggregate of all allotment base held individually by producers. Producer allotment base is the quantity of each class of spearmint oil that the Committee has determined is representative of a producer's spearmint oil production. Each producer is allotted a pro rata share of the total salable quantity of each class of spearmint oil each marketing year. Each producer's annual allotment is determined by applying the allotment percentage to the producer's individual allotment base for each applicable class of spearmint oil.

The full Committee met on November 6, 2013, to consider its marketing policy for the 2014-2015 marketing year. At that meeting, the Committee determined that marketing conditions indicated a need for volume regulation of both classes of spearmint oil for the 2014-2015 marketing year. The Committee recommended salable quantities of 1,149,030 pounds and 1,090,821 pounds, and allotment percentages of 55 percent and 46 percent, respectively, for Scotch and Native spearmint oil. A proposed rule to that effect was published in the Federal Register on March 14, 2014 (79 FR 14441). Comments on the proposed rule were solicited from interested persons until March 31, 2014. No comments were received. Subsequently, a final rule establishing the salable quantities and allotment percentages for Scotch and Native spearmint oil for the 2014-2015 marketing year was published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2014 (79 FR 26359).

Pursuant to authority contained in §§ 985.50, 985.51, and 985.52 of the order, the full eight member Committee met again on September 11, 2014, to consider pertinent market information on the current supply, demand, and price of spearmint oil. After some deliberation, the Committee recommended increasing the 2014-2015 marketing year Scotch spearmint oil salable quantity from 1,149,030 pounds to 1,984,423 pounds and the allotment percentage from 55 percent to 95 percent. An interim rule to that effect was published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2014 (79 FR 64657).

The full Committee met again on November 5, 2014, for a regularly scheduled annual meeting to evaluate the current year's volume control regulation and to adopt a marketing policy for the 2015-2016 marketing year. After thorough discussion with regards to the current marketing conditions for Native spearmint oil, the Committee recommended revising the previously established 2014-2015 marketing year Native spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage. Subsequently, in an interim rule published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2015 (80 FR 3142), the salable quantity for Native spearmint oil was increased from 1,090,821 pounds to 1,280,561 pounds and the allotment percentage was increased from 46 percent to 54 percent.

The full Committee met again on February 18, 2015, for a regularly scheduled meeting where it again evaluated the current year's volume control regulation. At the meeting, the Committee assessed the current market conditions for spearmint oil in relation to the revised salable quantities and allotment percentages established for the 2014-2015 marketing year. The Committee considered a number of factors, including the current and projected supply, estimated future demand, production costs, and producer prices for all classes of spearmint oil. The Committee determined that the recently revised salable quantity and allotment percentage in effect for Native spearmint oil for the 2014-2015 marketing year should be further increased to take into account the unanticipated rise in market demand for that class of spearmint oil.

Therefore, the Committee recommended increasing the Native spearmint oil salable quantity from 1,280,561 pounds to 1,351,704 pounds and the allotment percentage from 54 percent to 57 percent. The recommendation to increase the salable quantity and allotment percentage passed unanimously.

Thus, taking into consideration the following discussion, this rule makes additional amounts of Native spearmint oil available to the market by further increasing the salable quantity and allotment percentage previously established under the order for the 2014-2015 marketing year. This rule increases the Native spearmint oil salable quantity 71,143 pounds, to 1,351,704 pounds, and raises the allotment percentage 3 percent points, to 57 percent. Such additional oil will become available to the market by releasing Native spearmint oil held by producers in the reserve pool. As of May 31, 2014, the Committee records show that the reserve pool for Native spearmint oil contained 446,086 pounds of oil.

The increase in the salable quantity as a result of this rule represents an additional 71,143 pounds of Native spearmint oil being made available to the market. However, as some individual producers do not hold Native spearmint oil from previous year's production in the reserve pool, the Committee expects that only 48,769 pounds of additional Native spearmint oil will actually be made available to the spearmint oil market. The relatively high salable quantity resulting from this action, as compared to the actual quantity of spearmint oil that will be made available to the market, is necessary to ensure that a sufficient quantity of Native spearmint oil is available to fully supply the market. Producers that do not have additional Native spearmint oil in inventory (oil held in the reserve pool) will not be able to utilize the additional annual allotment issued to them as a result of this action and such additional annual allotment will go unused.

At the February meeting, the Committee staff reported that demand for Native spearmint oil continues to be greater than anticipated. Committee records indicate that 2014-2015 marketing year sales through the end of January 2015, the most recent full month recorded, are 148,325 pounds higher than for the same period in the 2013-2014 marketing year and 211,163 pounds higher than the average sales for the same period for the years 2009-2013. The Committee now estimates trade demand for Native spearmint oil for the 2014-2015 marketing year to be approximately 1,443,899 pounds, up from the 1,300,000 pounds initially estimated in the fall of 2013, and the 1,341,000 pounds estimated at the Committee's November 2014 meeting. If realized, this quantity of trade demand would be just 19,872 pounds less than the quantity of Native spearmint oil available under the volume control levels implemented in January 2015 (1,463,771 pounds available prior to this rule minus 1,443,899 pounds demanded = 19,872 pounds). The increased quantity of Native spearmint oil (48,769 pounds) actually made available to the market as a result of this action would ensure that market demand is fully satisfied in the current year and that there would be approximately 68,641 pounds of Native spearmint oil salable inventory available to the market for the start of the 2015-2016 marketing year, which begins on June 1, 2015.

In making the recommendation to increase the salable quantity and allotment percentage of Native spearmint oil, the Committee considered all currently available information on the price, supply, and demand of spearmint oil. The Committee also considered reports and other information from handlers and producers in attendance at the meeting. Lastly, the Committee manager presented information and reports that were provided to the Committee staff by handlers and producers who were not in attendance at the February 18, 2015, meeting.

This action increases the 2014-2015 marketing year Native spearmint oil salable quantity by 71,143 pounds, to a total of 1,351,704 pounds. However, as mentioned previously, the net effect of the increase will be much less than the calculated increase due to the amount of actual oil individual producers have available to market from reserve pool inventory. The Committee estimates that this action will actually make an additional 48,769 pounds of Native spearmint oil available to the market. That amount, combined with the 89,872 pounds of salable Native spearmint oil that the Committee estimates is currently available to the market, will make a total of 138,641 pounds available to be marketed through the remainder of the marketing year. The total supply of Native spearmint oil that the Committee anticipates actually being available to the market over the course of the 2014-2015 marketing year will be increased to 1,512,540 pounds. Actual sales of Native spearmint oil for the 2013-2014 marketing year totaled 1,341,555 pounds.

The Committee estimates that this action will result in 68,641 pounds of salable Native spearmint oil being carried into the 2015-2016 marketing year. In addition, the Committee expects that 248,602 pounds of Native spearmint oil will still be held in reserve pool stocks by producers after this increase. These inventory levels are low in comparison to historical levels, but are well within the range that the Committee believes to be appropriate moving forward. In addition, the Committee believes that the current Native spearmint oil market situation will stimulate production of Native spearmint oil in the coming years, further ensuring that the market will be adequately supplied in the future.

As mentioned previously, when the original 2014-2015 marketing policy statement was drafted, handlers estimated the demand for Native spearmint oil for the 2014-2015 marketing year to be 1,300,000 pounds. The Committee's initial recommendation for the establishment of the Native spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage for the 2014-2015 marketing year was based on that estimate. The Committee did not anticipate the increase in demand for Native spearmint oil that the market is currently experiencing and did not make allowances for it when the marketing policy was initially adopted. At the February 18, 2015, meeting, the Committee revised its estimate of the current trade demand to 1,443,899 pounds. The Committee now believes that the supply of Native spearmint oil available to the market under the previously revised salable quantity and allotment percentage would be insufficient to satisfy the current level of demand for oil at reasonable price levels. The Committee further believes that the increase in the salable quantity and allotment percentage effectuated by this action is vital to ensuring an adequate supply of Native spearmint oil is available to the market moving forward.

As previously stated, it is anticipated that this action will make 48,769 pounds of the Native spearmint oil held in the reserve pool available to the market. However, to achieve that desired net effect under the current supply conditions in the industry, it is necessary for the salable quantity and allotment percentage established under the volume regulation provisions of the order to be set at artificially high levels. The Committee records show that some producers do not hold Native spearmint oil in reserve. Given the process by which volume regulation is effectuated under the order, only those producers with Native spearmint oil in the reserve pool will be able to utilize the additional annual allotment that is issued as a result of this rule. Likewise, producers that do not have Native spearmint oil reserve oil from prior years' production will not have any Native spearmint oil inventory to offer to the market, regardless of how much additional annual allotment is issued to those producers. As such, the Committee expects that approximately 31 percent of the increased salable quantity and allotment percentage for Native spearmint oil may go unused.

As an example, assume Producer A has 2,000 pounds of Native spearmint oil allotment base. In addition, assume that during the 2014-2015 marketing year Producer A produced 920 pounds of Native spearmint oil and held 220 pounds of excess Native spearmint oil in reserve from production in prior years. Given that the initial 2014-2015 marketing year allotment percentage was established at 46 percent, Producer A could market all 920 pounds of the current year production (46 percent allotment percentage × 2,000 pounds of allotment base), leaving him/her with 220 pounds in the reserve pool that was initially not available to market. Without an increase in the allotment percentage, the producer would not have been able to market any of the 220 pounds of reserve oil and the oil would have continued to have been held in the reserve pool for marketing in subsequent years. For Producer A to market all 1,140 pounds of his/her current year Native spearmint oil production and reserve inventory, the allotment percentage needs to be increased by 11 percent (8 percent plus 3 percent) to a total of 57 percent (57 percent × 2,000 pounds = 1,140 pounds). An increase in the allotment percentage of anything less than 11 percent would fail to release all of the Native spearmint oil that the producer holds in the reserve pool. The increase in the allotment percentage may be accomplished in several steps, but has a cumulative effect with regards to the release of spearmint oil held in the reserve pool.

In contrast, assume that another producer, Producer B, likewise has 2,000 pounds of Native spearmint oil allotment base and produced 920 pounds of Native spearmint oil during the 2014-2015 marketing year. However, Producer B has no Native spearmint oil held in reserve. As in the first case, Producer B could market all of his/her current year production under the initial allotment percentage of 46 percent. However, any subsequent increase in the allotment percentage would have no impact on Producer B, as the producer has no reserve pool oil available to deliver to the market. As a result, any additional annual allotment allocated to Producer B after an increase in the allotment percentage would go unfilled.

The Committee acknowledges that the relatively high salable quantity, and the corresponding high allotment percentage, will create a quantity of Native spearmint oil annual allotment for which no Native spearmint oil will actually be available to market. The Committee estimates that a 3 percent increase in the allotment percentage and a 71,143 pound increase in the salable quantity is required to make the desired 48,769 pounds of Native spearmint reserve pool oil available to the market. Accordingly, the Committee expects that 22,374 pounds of the recommended 71,143 pound increase in salable quantity will go unfilled. This quantity of underutilized salable quantity has been factored into the Committee's recommendation.

The Committee's stated intent in the use of marketing order volume control regulation is to keep adequate supplies available to meet market needs and to maintain orderly marketing conditions. With that in mind, the Committee developed its recommendation for increasing the Native spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage for the 2014-2015 marketing year based on the information discussed above, as well as the summary data outlined below.

(A) Estimated 2014-2015 Native Allotment Base—2,371,350 pounds. This is the estimate on which the original 2014-2015 salable quantity and allotment percentage was based.

(B) Revised 2014-2015 Native Allotment Base—2,371,410 pounds. This is 60 pounds more than the estimated allotment base of 2,371,350 pounds. The difference is the result of annual adjustments made to the allotment base according to the provisions of the order.

(C) Original 2014-2015 Native Allotment Percentage—46 percent. This was unanimously recommended by the Committee on November 6, 2013.

(D) Original 2014-2015 Native Salable Quantity—1,090,821 pounds. This figure is 46 percent of the original estimated 2014-2015 allotment base of 2,371,350 pounds.

(E) Adjusted Initial 2014-2015 Native Salable Quantity—1,090,849 pounds. This figure reflects the salable quantity actually available at the beginning of the 2014-2015 marketing year. This quantity is derived by applying the initial 46 percent allotment percentage to the revised allotment base of 2,371,410.

(F) First Revision to the 2014-2015 Native Salable Quantity and Allotment Percentage:

(1) Initial Increase in the Native Allotment Percentage—8 percent. The Committee recommended an 8 percent increase at its November 5, 2014, meeting. The revision was published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2015 (80 FR 3142).

(2) Revised 2014-2015 Native Allotment Percentage—54 percent. This number was derived by adding the increase of 8 percent to the initially established 2014-2015 allotment percentage of 46 percent.

(3) Revised 2014-2015 Native Salable Quantity—1,280,561 pounds. This amount is 54 percent of the revised 2014-2015 allotment base of 2,371,410 pounds.

(G) Second Revision to the 2014-2015 Native Salable Quantity and Allotment Percentage:

(1) Increase in Native Allotment Percentage—3 percent. The Committee unanimously recommended a 3 percent increase at its February 18, 2015, meeting.

(2) Revised 2014-2015 Native Allotment Percentage—57 percent. This number is derived by adding the 3 percent increase to the previously revised 2014-2015 allotment percentage of 54 percent.

(3) Revised 2014-2015 Native Salable Quantity—1,351,704 pounds. This amount is 57 percent of the revised 2014-2015 allotment base of 2,371,410 pounds.

(4) Computed Increase in the 2014-2015 Native Salable Quantity as a Result of this Revision—71,143 pounds. This figure is 3 percent of the revised 2014-2015 allotment base of 2,371,410 pounds.

(5) Expected Actual Increase in the 2014-2015 Native Spearmint Oil Available to the Market—48,769 pounds. This amount is based on the Committee's estimation of Native spearmint oil actually held in the reserve pool by producers that may enter the market as a result of this rule.

Scotch spearmint oil is also regulated by the order. As mentioned previously, a salable quantity and allotment percentage for Scotch spearmint oil was established in a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2014 (79 FR 26359) and subsequently increased in an interim rule published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2014 (79 FR 64657). At the February 18, 2015, meeting, the Committee considered the current production, inventory, and marketing conditions for Scotch spearmint oil. After receiving reports from the Committee staff and comments from the industry, the consensus of the Committee was that the previously increased salable quantity and allotment percentage for Scotch spearmint oil was appropriate for the current market conditions. As such, the Committee took no further action with regards to Scotch spearmint oil for the 2014-2015 marketing year.

This rule relaxes the regulation of Native spearmint oil and will allow producers to meet market demand while improving producer returns. In conjunction with the issuance of this rule, the Committee's revised marketing policy statement for the 2014-2015 marketing year has been reviewed by USDA. The Committee's marketing policy statement, a requirement whenever the Committee recommends implementing volume regulations or recommends revisions to existing volume regulations, meets the intent of § 985.50 of the order. During its discussion of revising the 2014-2015 salable quantities and allotment percentages, the Committee considered: (1) The estimated quantity of salable oil of each class held by producers and handlers; (2) the estimated demand for each class of oil; (3) the prospective production of each class of oil; (4) the total of allotment bases of each class of oil for the current marketing year and the estimated total of allotment bases of each class for the ensuing marketing year; (5) the quantity of reserve oil, by class, in storage; (6) producer prices of oil, including prices for each class of oil; and (7) general market conditions for each class of oil, including whether the estimated season average price to producers is likely to exceed parity. Conformity with USDA's “Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders” has also been reviewed and confirmed.

The increase in the Native spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage allows for anticipated market needs for that class of oil. In determining anticipated market needs, the Committee considered changes and trends in historical sales, production, and demand.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

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

There are 8 spearmint oil handlers subject to regulation under the order, and approximately 39 producers of Scotch spearmint oil and approximately 91 producers of Native spearmint oil in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

Based on the SBA's definition of small entities, the Committee estimates that only two of the eight handlers regulated by the order could be considered small entities. Most of the handlers are large corporations involved in the international trading of essential oils and the products of essential oils. In addition, the Committee estimates that 22 of the 39 Scotch spearmint oil producers and 29 of the 91 Native spearmint oil producers could be classified as small entities under the SBA definition. Thus, the majority of handlers and producers of Far West spearmint oil may not be classified as small entities.

The use of volume control regulation allows the spearmint oil industry to fully supply spearmint oil markets while avoiding the negative consequences of over-supplying these markets. Without volume control regulation, the supply and price of spearmint oil would likely fluctuate widely. Periods of oversupply could result in low producer prices and a large volume of oil stored and carried over to future crop years. Periods of undersupply could lead to excessive price spikes and could drive end users to source flavoring needs from other markets, potentially causing long-term economic damage to the domestic spearmint oil industry. The marketing order's volume control provisions have been successfully implemented in the domestic spearmint oil industry since 1980 and provide benefits for producers, handlers, manufacturers, and consumers.

This rule increases the quantity of Native spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2014-2015 marketing year, which ends on May 31, 2015. The 2014-2015 Native spearmint oil salable quantity was initially established at 1,090,821 pounds and the allotment percentage initially set at 46 percent. The salable quantity was subsequently increased to 1,280,561 pounds and the allotment percentage to 54 percent. This rule further increases the Native spearmint oil salable quantity to 1,351,704 pounds and the allotment percentage to 57 percent.

Based on the information and projections available at the February 18, 2015, meeting, the Committee considered a number of alternatives to this increase. The Committee not only considered leaving the salable quantity and allotment percentage unchanged, but also considered other potential levels of increase. The Committee reached its recommendation to increase the salable quantity and allotment percentage for Native spearmint oil after careful consideration of all available information and input from all interested industry participants, and believes that the levels recommended will achieve the objectives sought. Without the increase, the Committee believes the industry would not be able to satisfactorily meet market demand.

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

This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large spearmint oil handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

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

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

Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the spearmint oil industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the February 18, 2015, meeting was a public meeting, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

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

This rule invites comments on a change to the salable quantity and allotment percentage for Native spearmint oil for the 2014-2015 marketing year. Any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

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

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) This rule increases the quantity of Native spearmint oil that may be marketed during the marketing year, which ends on May 31, 2015; (2) the current quantity of Native spearmint oil may be inadequate to meet demand for the 2014-2015 marketing year, thus making the additional oil available as soon as is practicable will be beneficial to both handlers and producers; (3) the Committee recommended these changes at a public meeting and interested parties had an opportunity to provide input; and (4) this rule provides a 60-day comment period, and any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 985

Marketing agreements, Oils and fats, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Spearmint oil.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 985 is amended as follows:

PART 985—MARKETING ORDER REGULATING THE HANDLING OF SPEARMINT OIL PRODUCED IN THE FAR WEST 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 985 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 601-674.

2. In § 985.233, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 985.233 Salable quantities and allotment percentages—2014-2015 marketing year.

(b) Class 3 (Native) oil—a salable quantity of 1,351,704 pounds and an allotment percentage of 57 percent.

Dated: March 24, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-07114 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 985 [Doc. No. AMS-FV-13-0087; FV14-985-1A FIR] Marketing Order Regulating the Handling of Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Revision of the Salable Quantity and Allotment Percentage for Class 1 (Scotch) Spearmint Oil for the 2014-2015 Marketing Year AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is adopting as a final rule, without change, an interim rule recommended by the Spearmint Oil Administrative Committee (Committee) that revised the quantity of Class 1 (Scotch) spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2014-2015 marketing year under the Far West spearmint oil marketing order. The Committee locally administers the order and is comprised of producers and handlers of spearmint oil. The interim rule increased the Scotch spearmint oil salable quantity from 1,149,030 pounds to 1,984,423 pounds and the allotment percentage from 55 percent to 95 percent. This change is expected to help maintain orderly marketing conditions in the Far West spearmint oil market.

DATES:

Effective March 30, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barry Broadbent, Senior Marketing Specialist, or Gary Olson, Regional Director, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326-2724, Fax: (503) 326-7440, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Small businesses may obtain information on complying with this and other marketing order regulations by viewing a guide at the following Web site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide; or by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 985 (7 CFR part 985), as amended, regulating the handling of spearmint oil produced in the Far West (Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and designated parts of Nevada and Utah), hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

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

The handling of spearmint oil produced in the Far West is regulated by the order and is administered locally by the Committee. Under the authority of the order, salable quantities and allotment percentages were established for both Scotch and Native spearmint oil for the 2014-2015 marketing year. However, early in the 2014-2015 marketing year, it became evident to the Committee and the industry that demand for Scotch spearmint oil was greater than previously projected and an intra-seasonal increase in the salable quantity and allotment percentage for Scotch spearmint oil was necessary to adequately supply the increased demand. Therefore, this rule continues in effect the rule that increased the Scotch spearmint oil salable quantity from 1,149,030 pounds to 1,984,423 pounds and the allotment percentage from 55 percent to 95 percent.

In an interim rule published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2014, and effective June 1, 2014, through May 31, 2015 (79 FR 64657, Doc. No. AMS-FV-13-0087, FV14-985-1A IR), § 985.233 was amended to reflect the aforementioned increases in the salable quantity and allotment percentage for Scotch spearmint oil for the 2014-2015 marketing year.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

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

There are 8 spearmint oil handlers subject to regulation under the order, and approximately 39 producers of Scotch spearmint oil and approximately 91 producers of Native spearmint oil in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

Based on the SBA's definition of small entities, the Committee estimates that only two of the eight handlers regulated by the order could be considered small entities. Most of the handlers are large corporations involved in the international trading of essential oils and the products of essential oils. In addition, the Committee estimates that 22 of the 39 Scotch spearmint oil producers and 29 of the 91 Native spearmint oil producers could be classified as small entities under the SBA definition. Thus, the majority of handlers and producers of Far West spearmint oil may not be classified as small entities.

The use of volume control regulation allows the spearmint oil industry to fully supply spearmint oil markets while avoiding the negative consequences of over-supplying these markets. Without volume control regulation, the supply and price of spearmint oil would likely fluctuate widely. Periods of oversupply could result in low producer prices and a large volume of oil stored and carried over to future crop years. Periods of undersupply could lead to excessive price spikes and could drive end users to source their flavoring needs from other markets, potentially causing long-term economic damage to the domestic spearmint oil industry. The order's volume control provisions have been successfully implemented in the domestic spearmint oil industry since 1980 and provide benefits for producers, handlers, manufacturers, and consumers.

This rule increases the quantity of Scotch spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from or handle on behalf of producers during the 2014-2015 marketing year, which ends on May 31, 2015. The 2014-2015 Scotch spearmint oil salable quantity was initially established at 1,149,030 pounds and the allotment percentage initially set at 55 percent. This rule increases the Scotch spearmint oil salable quantity to 1,984,423 pounds and the allotment percentage to 95 percent.

The Committee reached its decision to recommend an increase in the salable quantity and allotment percentage for Scotch spearmint oil after careful consideration of all available information. With the increase, the Committee believes that the industry will be able to satisfactorily meet the current market demand for this class of spearmint oil. This rule amends the salable quantities and allotment percentages previously established in § 985.233. Authority for this action is provided in §§ 985.50, 985.51, and 985.52 of the order.

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

This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large spearmint oil handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the spearmint oil industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the September 11, 2014, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue.

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before December 30, 2014. No comments were received. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change.

To view the interim rule, go to: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=AMS-FV-13-0087-0003.

This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13175, and 13563; the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).

After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the Federal Register (79 FR 64657, October 31, 2014) will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 985

Marketing agreements, Oils and fats, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Spearmint oil.

Accordingly, the interim rule that amended 7 CFR part 985 and that was published at 79 FR 64657 on October 31, 2014, is adopted as a final rule, without change.

Dated: March 24, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-07110 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-1002; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-033-AD; Amendment 39-18127; AD 2015-06-09] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Pacific Aerospace Limited (PAL) Model 750XL airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as PAL Model 750XL airplanes manufactured with only one attitude indicator. A second attitude indicator is required for flights under instrument flight rules. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective May 4, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of May 4, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-1002; or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

For service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; telephone: +64 7 843 6144; fax: +64 7 843 6134; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.aerospace.co.nz/. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-1002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4123; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to add an AD that would apply to Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2014 (79 FR 72564). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

This AD with effective date 10 November 2014 is prompted by a recent determination that certain PAL750XL aircraft were inadvertently manufactured with instrument panels with only one Attitude Indicator (AI). A second AI is required for PAL750XL operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR).

The AD mandates the installation of either a second AI, or the enablement of Reversionary Attitude mode in the Sandel Electronic Horizontal Situation Indicator (EHSI), if fitted, when operating under IFR.

The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-1002-0002. Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 72564, December 8, 2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 72564, December 8, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 72564, December 8, 2014).

Relative Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51

We reviewed Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/074, Issue 2, dated November 4, 2014. The service bulletin describes procedures for installing a second attitude indicator or enabling the reversionary mode on a Sandel SN3500 electronic horizontal situation indicator (EHSI), if installed, whichever is applicable. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD will affect 17 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $3,500 per product.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $68,170, or $4,010 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-1002; 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 the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: 2015-06-09 Pacific Aerospace Limited: Amendment 39-18127; Docket No. FAA-2014-1002; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-033-AD. (a) Effective Date

This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 4, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes manufactured with instrument panels with only one attitude indicator. A second attitude indicator is required to operate under instrument flight rules (IFR). A reversionary attitude indicator reduces the probability of a single point failure, which could result in loss of control. We are issuing this proposed AD to install a reversionary attitude indicator before operating in IFR conditions.

(f) Actions and Compliance

Unless already done, before the next flight requiring instrument flight rules (IFR) after the effective date of this AD, install a second attitude indicator into the right hand instrument panel or enable the reversionary mode on a Sandel SN3500 electronic horizontal situation indicator (EHSI), if installed, whichever is applicable, following the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS in Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/074, Issue 2, dated November 4, 2014.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4123; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

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

(h) Related Information

Refer to MCAI in Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) AD DCA/750XL/17A, dated November 6, 2014, for related information. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-1002-0002.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/074, Issue 2, dated November 4, 2014.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; telephone: +64 7 843 6144; fax: +64 7 843 6134; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.aerospace.co.nz/.

(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-1002.

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

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 19, 2015. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-07104 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0619; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-029-AD; Amendment 39-18124; AD 2015-06-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model 4101 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of the failure, due to overheat, of a bracket on which the earth post (EP) for the generator and propeller de-ice systems is located. This AD requires an inspection of the affected EPs and attachment structure for damage, an inspection of the earth cables of the generator and propeller de-ice system for signs of overheating and arcing damage, a torque check of the affected EP stiff nuts, an electrical high current bonding check of the bracket, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct an overheat failure of the EPs for the generator and propeller de-ice system, and possible degradation of the wing front spar cap and/or web, which could affect the structural integrity of the wing.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective May 4, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 4, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0619 or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA 2014-0619.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1175; fax 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model 4101 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 3, 2014 (79 FR 52270). The NPRM was prompted by a report of the failure, due to overheat, of a bracket on which the EP for the generator and propeller de-ice systems is located. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection of the affected EPs and attachment structure for damage, an inspection of the earth cables of the generator and propeller de-ice system for signs of overheating and arcing damage, a torque check of the affected EP stiff nuts, an electrical high current bonding check of the bracket, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct an overheat failure of the EPs for the generator and propeller de-ice system, and possible degradation of the wing front spar cap and/or web, which could affect the structural integrity of the wing.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0006, dated January 7, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition. The MCAI states:

An occurrence was reported involving a Jetstream 4100 aeroplane, where a bracket, on which the earth post for the generator and propeller de-ice systems is located, failed due to overheat. Although the earth post and cables were not damaged, the mounting bracket and underlying structure were damaged to the extent that repair of the wing front spar web was necessary. Furthermore, the aft engine cross support rod, which is attached to the same bracket, was found damaged, as a result of excessive current load, and required replacement. The subsequent investigation determined that, due to the damage tolerance of the aft engine cross rod support, the rod does not present an airworthiness issue. However, as a consequence of overheat failure of the earth post, degradation of the wing front spar cap and/or web could affect the structural integrity of the wing.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the capacity of the wing to support loads, possibly resulting in wing structure failure and consequent loss of the aeroplane.

To address this potential unsafe condition, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd issued [Inspection] Service Bulletin (SB) J41-24-043 [Revision 2, dated August 21, 2013] to provide inspection instructions.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time visual inspection of the affected earth posts, an electrical high current bonding check of the bracket and, if discrepancies are detected, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

The required actions include a general visual inspection of the affected EPs and attachment structure for damage; a general visual inspection of the earth cables of the generator and propeller de-ice system for arcing damage and signs of overheating of the cable insulation and terminal tags; a torque check of the EP2 and EP4 stiff nuts; an electrical high current bonding check of the bracket; and corrective actions if necessary. Corrective actions include repair of damaged structure, replacement of damaged cables, cleaning of all applicable surfaces to achieve the necessary resistance value, and correction of the torque load of EP stiff nuts.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0619-0002.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 52270, September 3, 2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Changes Made to This AD

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued Inspection Service Bulletin J41-24-043, Revision 3, dated June 16, 2014. This service bulletin states that “this revision does not require rework of the modification(s) embodied by earlier revision of this service bulletin.” We have revised paragraphs (g) through (k) of this AD to reference this service information. We have revised paragraph (l) of this AD to give credit for actions done prior to the effective date of this AD using BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin J41-24-043, Revision 2, dated August 21, 2013.

Conclusion

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 52270, September 3, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 52270, September 3, 2014).

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin J41-24-043, Revision 3, dated June 16, 2014. The service information describes procedures for an inspection of the earth post EP2 (left) and earth post EP4 (right) on the structure for the left and right power plants. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 4 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 AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,360, or $340 per product.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0619; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-06-06 BAE Systems (Operations) Limited: Amendment 39-18124. Docket No. FAA-2014-0619; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-029-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective May 4, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model 4101 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical Power.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by a report of the failure, due to overheat, of a bracket on which the earth post (EP) for the generator and propeller de-ice systems is located. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct an overheat failure of the EPs for the generator and propeller de-ice system and possible degradation of the wing front spar cap and/or web, which could affect the structural integrity of the wing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection of the Earth Posts and Attachment Structure and Corrective Action

Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a general visual inspection on both engines of the structure around EP2 and EP4; the brackets on which the EPs are mounted; the attachment of the nacelle horizontal support for damage, and lateral movement of the EPs; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin J41-24-043, Revision 3, dated June 16, 2014. If any lateral movement of the EP or any other damage is detected, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or BAE Systems (Operations) Limited's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

(h) Inspection of the Earth Cables and Corrective Action

Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a general visual inspection of the earth cables of the generator and propeller de-ice system for arcing damage and signs that the cable insulation or terminal tags have been overheated, and do all applicable corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin J41-24-043, Revision 3, dated June 16, 2014. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

(i) Torque Check of the Earth Post Stiff Nuts

Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a torque check of the EP2 and EP4 stiff nuts, and adjust the torque load as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin J41-24-043, Revision 3, dated June 16, 2014.

(j) Resistance Measurement of the EP2 and EP4 Earth Bolts

Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD: Measure the resistance of the EP2 and EP4 earth bolts using a high-current millivolts-drop test, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin J41-24-043, Revision 3, dated June 16, 2014. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

(k) No Reporting Required

Although BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin J41-24-043, Revision 3, dated June 16, 2014, specifies to submit information to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that this information be submitted.

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using a service bulletin specified in paragraph (l)(1), (l)(2), or (l)(3) of this AD, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(1) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin J41-24-043, dated September 27, 2011.

(2) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin J41-24-043, Revision 1, dated January 16, 2012.

(3) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin J41-24-043, Revision 2, dated August 21, 2013.

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1175; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

(n) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2014-0006, dated January 7, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0619-0002.

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

(o) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin J41-24-043, Revision 3, dated June 16, 2014.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm.

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 12, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-06751 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0284; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-011-AD; Amendment 39-18125; AD 2015-06-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-100, 737-200, 737-200C, 737-300, 737-400, and 737-500 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the lower corners of the forward entry doorway and the upper corners of the airstairs cutout. This AD requires inspections for cracking of the forward entry doorway and airstairs cutout, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also provides terminating action for the repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the lower corners of the forward entry door cutout and the upper corners of the airstairs cutout, which could progress and result in an inability to maintain cabin pressurization.

DATES:

This AD is effective May 4, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 4, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

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 this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0284.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0284; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nenita Odesa, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5234; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-100, 737-200, 737-200C, 737-300, 737-400, and 737-500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 28, 2014 (79 FR 30500). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracking in the lower corners of the forward entry doorway and the upper corners of the airstairs cutout. The NPRM proposed to require inspections for cracking of the forward entry doorway and airstairs cutout, and corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to provide terminating action for the repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the lower corners of the forward entry door cutout and the upper corners of the airstairs cutout, which could progress and result in an inability to maintain cabin pressurization.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 30500, May 28, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the installation of winglets per supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/082838ee177dbf62862576a4005cdfc0/$FILE/ST01219SE.pdf) does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM (79 FR 30500, May 28, 2014).

We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD (79 FR 30500, May 28, 2014) as paragraph (c)(1) in this AD and added new paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/082838ee177dbf62862576a4005cdfc0/$FILE/ST01219SE.pdf) does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this final rule. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Request to Clarify That Certain Inspections Are Not Required for Areas With Existing Repairs

Southwest Airlines (SWA) requested that the NPRM (79 FR 30500, May 28, 2014) be revised to clarify that the initial and repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD would not be required for locations that are common to existing repairs that were installed using the Boeing Model 737 structural repair manual (SRM) repairs identified in Part 3, “Permanent Repair,” of Paragraph 3.B., “Work Instructions,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 4, dated December 18, 2013. As an alternative to this clarification, SWA suggested that guidance be provided on how to address the existing repairs since the inspections proposed in paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD cannot be accomplished in the repaired areas.

SWA observed that the applicability blocks in Repair 12 and Repair 13 of Boeing 737-300/400/500 SRM 53-10-01 state that the inspections identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 4, dated December 18, 2013, are not necessary for the repaired areas.

We agree that the inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD cannot be accomplished at locations where certain repairs have been installed. We have added a new paragraph (g)(3) to this AD and redesignated the subsequent paragraph as (g)(4). Paragraph (g)(3) of this AD clarifies that accomplishment of a permanent repair terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD for the repaired area only.

Request for Alternative Inspection Methods

SWA requested that the NPRM (79 FR 30500, May 28, 2014) be revised to provide operators the option to request alternative inspection instructions from Boeing for areas with existing repairs that were approved by a Boeing Authorized Representative (AR). The inspections proposed in paragraph (g)(1) of the NPRM cannot be accomplished in areas with existing repairs.

We do not agree to revise this AD to include a provision to provide operators the option to request alternative inspection instructions from Boeing. If there are existing repairs that were approved by a Boeing AR, and those existing repairs prevent accomplishment of the inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, 14 CFR 39.17 of the Federal Aviation Regulations requires an affected operator to obtain an AMOC from the FAA. Upon publication of this AD, the Manager of the Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office will consider granting AMOC authority for this AD to the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA).

Request To Clarify That Inspections Are Not Required for Previously Repaired Areas

Boeing requested that paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM (79 FR 30500, May 28, 2014) be revised to specify that the inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of the NPRM are not required for Groups 1 and 2 airplanes that have been repaired using the service information identified in paragraph (g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), or (g)(2)(iii) of the NPRM. Boeing noted that, as currently written, paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM would not require inspection of the unrepaired lower entry door and upper airstair corners and would contradict the inspections in the service information, which could lead to an unsafe condition. Boeing also pointed out that the inspection zones specified in the following service information do not include the repaired area(s).

• Boeing Service Bulletin 737-531083, Revision 1, dated October 25, 1985.

• Boeing Service Bulletin 737-531083, Revision 2, dated March 17, 1988.

• Boeing Service Bulletin 737-531083, Revision 3, dated December 7, 1989.

For the reasons provided by the commenter we agree to revise paragraph (g)(2) of this AD to specify that “[T]he inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD are not required in the repaired area.”

Request To Specify Inspection Locations

Boeing requested that paragraph (g)(1) of the NPRM (79 FR 30500, May 28, 2014) be revised to specify the locations that need to be inspected. The commenter stated that, as currently written, the inspection methods are specified but not the inspection locations. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 4, dated December 18, 2013, provides different inspection methods based on the location of the inspection. Boeing suggested that the revision to paragraph (g)(1) state “[D]o the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(iv) of this AD and in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 4. . . .”

We do not agree it is necessary to specify inspection locations because paragraph (g)(1) of this AD already requires operators to do the inspections in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 5, dated July 22, 2014. These accomplishment instructions include the specific inspection methods and the inspection locations. No change has been made to this AD in this regard.

Request To Refer to Revised Service Information

ANA and Europe Airpost requested that the material in Boeing Information Notice 737-53-1083 R04 IN 03 to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53-1083 be included in the final rule. The commenters noted that, based on the material in Boeing Information Notice 737-53-1083 R04 IN 03 to Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, the inspection of the skin doubler required by paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of the NPRM (79 FR 30500, May 28, 2014) would no longer be applicable to Group 4 airplanes. The commenters explained that Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 5, dated July 22, 2014, would incorporate the material in Boeing Information Notice 737-53-1083 R04 IN 03. The commenters pointed out that operators might have to request AMOCs from the FAA if the final rule did not include this material and was issued prior to Boeing's release of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 5, dated July 22, 2014.

We agree that the material in Information Notice 737-53-1083 R04 IN 03 to Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1083 is incorporated in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 5, dated July 22, 2014. Since the NPRM (79 FR 30500, May 28, 2014) was published, Boeing has issued and we have reviewed Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 5, dated July 22, 2014. We have revised this AD to include Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 5, dated July 22, 2014, as an additional source of service information. We have also included a new paragraph (k) in this AD, and redesignated the subsequent paragraphs accordingly, to provide credit for accomplishment of certain actions before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 4, dated December 18, 2013.

Conclusion

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

• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 30500, May 28, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 30500, May 28, 2014).

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 5, dated July 22, 2014. The service information describes procedures for inspection of the forward entry doorway and airstairs doorway, modification, and repair. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 132 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspection (Groups 1 through 4 airplanes). 1 9 work-hours × $85 per hour = $765 per inspection cycle $0 $765 per inspection cycle $100,980 per inspection cycle. 1 We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the inspection of Group 5 airplanes. Optional Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Preventive modification Up to 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 Up to $3,927 Up to $4,097.

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

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Repair 25 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,125 Up to $5,342 Up to $7,467.
    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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-06-07 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18125; Docket No. FAA-2014-0284; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-011-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 4, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 5, dated July 22, 2014.

    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/082838ee177dbf62862576a4005cdfc0/$FILE/ST01219SE.pdf) does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. For airplanes on which STC ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/ebd1cec7b301293e86257cb30045557a/$FILE/ST01219SE.pdf) is installed, therefore, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the lower corners of the forward entry doorway and the upper corners of the airstairs cutout. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the lower corners of the forward entry door cutout and the upper corners of the airstairs cutout, which could progress and result in an inability to maintain cabin pressurization.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspections and Corrective Actions

    (1) For airplane Groups 1 through 4, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 5, dated July 22, 2014: Except as required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in table 1, 2, or 3, as applicable, of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737 53-1083, Revision 5, dated July 22, 2014, do the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(iv) of this AD for cracks at the forward entry doorway and airstairs cutout, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with Parts 1 and 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 5, dated July 22, 2014, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Repeat the inspections, thereafter, at the interval specified in table 1, 2, or 3, as applicable, of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 5, dated July 22, 2014. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Any repair done in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 5, dated July 22, 2014, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD for the repaired area only.

    (i) An external detailed and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection of the skin.

    (ii) An internal detailed and HFEC inspection of exposed parts of the bear strap.

    (iii) A detailed and HFEC inspection along the edge of the cutout in the skin, skin doubler, and bear strap.

    (iv) An external low frequency eddy current inspection (LFEC) of the skin and bearstrap.

    (2) For Groups 1 and 2 airplanes that have been repaired using any of the service information identified in paragraph (g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), or (g)(2)(iii) of this AD, the inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD are not required for the repaired area.

    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 1, dated October 25, 1985.

    (ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 2, dated March 25, 1988.

    (iii) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 3, dated December 7, 1989.

    (3) For Groups 3 and 4 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 5, dated July 22, 2014: Accomplishment of a repair specified in Part 3, “Permanent Repair,” of Paragraph 3.B., “Work Instructions,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 5, dated July 22, 2014, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD for the repaired area(s) only.

    (4) For Group 5 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 5, dated July 22, 2014: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the forward entry door cutout and airstairs cutout for cracks, and repair any crack, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (h) Optional Preventive Modification

    For Groups 1 and 2, Configurations 5 and 6 airplanes; and Groups 3 and 4 airplanes; as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 5, dated July 22, 2014: Except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, accomplishment of the preventive modification in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 5, dated July 22, 2014, terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

    (i) Post-Modification and Post-Repair Repetitive Inspections

    The post-modification and post-repair repetitive inspections specified in table 4 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 5, dated July 22, 2014, are not required by this AD.

    Note 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD:

    The inspections specified in table 4 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 5, dated July 22, 2014, may be used in support of compliance with Section 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 14 CFR 129.109(b)(2)). The corresponding actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 5, dated July 22, 2014, are not required by this AD.

    (j) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 5, dated July 22, 2014, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 4 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 5, dated July 22, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions, this AD requires repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (k) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 4, dated December 18, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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 (m)(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) 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, Los Angeles 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.

    (m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Nenita Odesa, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5234; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

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

    (n) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1083, Revision 5, dated July 22, 2014.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) 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.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 13, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06753 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 924 [SATS No. MS-024-FOR; Docket No. OSM- 2014-0005; S1D1SSS08011000SX066A 00067F154S180110; S2D2SSS08011000SX 066A00033F15XS501520] Mississippi Abandoned Mine Land Plan AGENCY:

    Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; approval of amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are approving an amendment to the Mississippi Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan (hereinafter, the Mississippi Plan) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Mississippi requested concurrence from the Secretary of the Department of the Interior with its certification of completion of all coal-related reclamation objectives. Mississippi intends to request Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Reclamation funds to pursue projects in accordance with section 411 of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1240a.

    DATES:

    Effective March 30, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sherry Wilson, Director, Birmingham Field Office. Telephone: (205) 290-7282. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on the Mississippi Plan II. Submission of the Amendment III. Summary and Disposition of Comments IV. OSMRE's Decision V. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the Mississippi Plan

    Title IV of the Act (30 U.S.C. 1231 et seq.) established the AML program in order to address the extensive environmental damage caused by past coal mining activities. The AML program is funded primarily by a reclamation fee collected on each ton of coal produced. The money collected is placed in the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund (the “Fund”) and used to finance the reclamation of abandoned coal mines and for other authorized activities. In addition to moneys from the Fund, Title IV also provides for the use of some general Treasury moneys to fund reclamation projects and other authorized activities.

    Section 405 of the Act, 30 U.S.C. 1235, allows States and Indian tribes to assume exclusive responsibility for reclamation activity within the State or on Indian lands if they develop and submit to the Secretary of the Interior for approval, a program (often referred to as a plan) for the reclamation of abandoned coal mines. On September 27, 2007, the Secretary of the Interior approved the Mississippi Plan. You can find background information on the Mississippi Plan, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the approval of the plan in the September 27, 2007, Federal Register (72 FR 54832). No prior amendments have been made to the Mississippi Plan (30 CFR part 924.20).

    II. Submission of the Amendment

    By letter dated August 11, 2014 (Administrative Record No. MS-0424), Mississippi certified to OSMRE that all coal-related impacts on abandoned mine lands within the State have been successfully addressed under SMCRA. Mississippi sent the request for concurrence with its certification at its own initiative. As indicated by our November 12, 2014, Federal Register (79 FR 67115) notice, we also construed this request for certification as an amendment to Mississippi's Plan. In addition to this current amendment, Mississippi will most likely be required to revise its plan again in the future to implement a program under section 411 of SMCRA.

    III. Summary and Disposition of Comments

    We announced receipt of the proposed certification in the November 12, 2014, Federal Register (79 FR 67115). In the same document, we opened the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on the certification's adequacy. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing or meeting and, thus, did not hold one.

    Public Comments

    The public comment period ended on December 12, 2014. We did not receive any public comments.

    Federal Agency Comments

    On September 3, 2014, as required by 30 CFR 884.14(a)(2) and 884.15(a), we requested comments on the proposed Mississippi Plan amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Mississippi program (Administrative Record No. MS-0424-01). We did not receive any comments.

    IV. OSMRE's Decision

    After a review of all of the relevant information, on December 18, 2014, the Director of OSMRE, in accordance with section 411(a)(1) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1240(a)(1)) and 30 CFR 875.13(b) determined that Mississippi met all of the applicable criteria and concurred with Mississippi's certification (Administrative Record MS-0424-02). The Director's concurrence with Mississippi's certification of completion of coal reclamation means that Mississippi may now use funds provided under Title IV of SMCRA in accordance with section 411 of SMCRA and its current plan. In addition, as part of its certification and in accordance with 30 CFR 875.13(a)(3), Mississippi agrees to acknowledge and give top priority to any coal-related problem(s) that may be found or occur after submission of the certification.

    In order to implement Mississippi's certification, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 924 that codify decisions concerning the Mississippi Plan. Given the technical nature of this rule, we find that delaying the effective date of this rule would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. This rule merely codifies the decision by the Director that became immediately effective on December 18, 2014, when he concurred in Mississippi's certification under section 411(a) of SMCRA. Therefore, we find good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    V. Procedural Determinations Executive Order 12630—Takings

    This rule does not have significant takings implications because it is not a governmental action capable of interference with constitutionally protected property rights. A takings implication assessment is not required.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563—Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. This rule is merely a technical amendment to the Mississippi regulations at 30 CFR Part 924 to denote that Mississippi is certified. As such, it does not implicate any of the considerations embodied in this executive order.

    Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform

    This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule:

    (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

    (b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

    Executive Order 13132—Federalism

    This rule 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.”

    Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does 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.

    Executive Order 13211—Regulations That Significantly Affect the Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This rule is not considered significant under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that the revisions in this rule are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as provided in 43 CFR 46.205(b). We have determined the rule is covered by the specific categorical exclusion listed in the Department of the Interior regulations at 43 CFR 46.210(i). That categorical exclusion covers regulations such as this one that are of an administrative or technical nature. We have also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). As discussed above, the aggregate economic impact of this rulemaking on small business entities should be minimal.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. As previously discussed, this rulemaking will not have a substantial economic impact on any entity.

    List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 924

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining, Abandoned mine reclamation programs.

    Dated: January 20, 2015. Ervin J. Barchenger, Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 924 is amended as set forth below:

    PART 924—MISSISSIPPI 1. The authority citation for Part 924 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

    2. Section 924.25 is added to read as follows:
    § 924.25 Approval of Mississippi abandoned mine land reclamation plan amendments.

    The following is a list of the dates on which the State of Mississippi submitted amendments to OSMRE, the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register, and the State citations or a brief description of each amendment. The amendments in this table are listed in order of the date of final publication in the Federal Register.

    Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description August 11, 2014 March 30, 2015 Certification that the State has reclaimed all lands adversely impacted by past coal mining.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06958 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 49 [EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0479; FRL9923-70-Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Federal Implementation Plan for Oil and Natural Gas Well Production Facilities; Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation), North Dakota; Correction AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Correcting amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains corrections to the final rule, which published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2013 (78 FR 17836). Errors in the amendatory instruction are identified and corrected in this action.

    DATES:

    This action is effective March 30, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathy Ayala, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, 303-312-6142, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The final regulations for 40 CFR part 49 subsections 49.4161 through 49.4168 that are the subject of this correction were finalized and published March 22, 2013 (78 FR 17836). A previous final rule published in the Federal Register at 77 FR 48878, August 15, 2012, published the interim provisions at 40 CFR part 49 subsections 49.140 through 49.147.

    Need for Correction

    As published, the final regulations contain an error in the amendatory instruction and set-out text:

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49

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

    Accordingly, 40 CFR part 49 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:

    PART 49—INDIAN COUNTRY: AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 1. The authority citation for Part 49 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    Subpart C—General Federal Implementation Plan Provisions
    §§ 49.140 through 49.147 [Removed and Reserved]
    2. Remove and reserve §§ 49.140 through 49.147
    Dated: March 19, 2015. Shaun L. McGrath, Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07230 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0170; FRL-9925-24-Region 7] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri, Control of Sulfur Emissions From Stationary Boilers AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Missouri on October 17, 2013, related to amendments to the Missouri rule “Control of Sulfur Emissions from Stationary Boilers.” This action provides clarification on the applicability of the provision, and relocates definitions used in the original provision to the “Definitions and Common Reference Tables” rule.

    DATES:

    This direct final rule will be effective May 29, 2015, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 29, 2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0170 by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected]

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

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0170 EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or email information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30 excluding legal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Larry Gonzalez, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913-551-7041 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the SIP submitted by the State of Missouri on October 17, 2013, related to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-5.570 “Control of Sulfur Emission From Stationary Boilers.” This action amends 10 CSR 10-5.570 by clarifying that the sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission limits for breweries specified in subsection (3)(A)2 apply only to the total SO2 emissions from applicable emission units operating within an installation, and not the combined emissions from the entire brewery. Additionally, definitions originally listed in section (2) of this rule have been removed and are now located at 10 CSR 10-6.020, “Definitions and Common Reference Tables.”

    II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. No public comments were received during the state public comment period. The submission also satisfies the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

    III. What action is EPA taking?

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

    Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Missouri's rule 10-5.570 “Control of Sulfur Emission From Stationary Boilers” described in the direct final amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 29, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: March 17, 2015. Mark Hague, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart AA—Missouri 2. In § 52.1320(c) the table is amended by revising the entry for 10-5.570 to read as follows:
    § 52.1320 Identification of Plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations Missouri citation Title State effective date EPA Approval date Explanation Missouri Department of Natural Resources *         *         *        *         *         *         * Chapter 5—Air Quality Regulations and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area *         *         *        *         *         *         * 10-5.570 Control of Sulfur Emissions from Stationary Boilers 10/30/13 3/30/15
  • [Insert Federal Register citation]
  • *         *         *        *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-07126 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0270; FRL-9924-99-Region 4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Mississippi Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve in part and disapprove in part the November 17, 2011, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, provided by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for inclusion into the Mississippi SIP. This final action pertains to the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 Lead national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an “infrastructure” SIP. MDEQ certified that the Mississippi SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2008 Lead NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Mississippi. With the exception of provisions pertaining to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting, for which EPA is not acting upon, and disapproving certain state boards requirements, EPA is taking final action to approve Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission, provided to EPA on November 17, 2011, because it addresses the required infrastructure elements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.

    DATES:

    This rule will be effective April 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0270. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section (formerly the Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning and Implementation Branch (formerly the Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Zuri Farngalo, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9152. Mr. Farngalo can be reached via electronic mail at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS. Section 110(a) of the CAA generally requires states to make a SIP submission to meet applicable requirements in order to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. These SIP submissions are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIP submissions. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make an infrastructure SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the infrastructure SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affect the content of the submission. The contents of such infrastructure SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains. In the case of the 2008 Lead NAAQS, states typically have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous lead NAAQS.

    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these requirements include basic structural SIP elements such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The applicable infrastructure SIP requirements that are the subject of this rulemaking are listed below.1

    1 Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area plan requirements are due pursuant to other provisions of the CAA for submission of SIP revisions specifically applicable for attainment planning purposes. These requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required in part D Title I of the CAA; and (2) submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today's proposed rulemaking does not address infrastructure elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment planning requirements of 110(a)(2)(C).

    • 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.

    • 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.

    • 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement, prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and new source review (NSR).2

    2 This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element as they relate to attainment areas.

    • 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate and international transport provisions.

    • 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate personnel, funding, and authority.

    • 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.

    • 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.

    • 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.

    • 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials, public notification, and PSD and visibility protection.

    • 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.

    • 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.

    • 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.

    On November 18, 2014, EPA proposed to approve Mississippi's November 17, 2011, 2008 Lead NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission with the exception of provisions pertaining to PSD permitting in sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and (J) and the majority requirements respecting significant portion of income for state boards of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). EPA proposed disapproval of the majority requirements respecting significant portion of income for state boards of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). EPA will address the PSD permitting requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and (J) in a separate action. See 79 FR 68648.

    II. Today's Action

    In this rulemaking, EPA is taking final action to approve Mississippi's infrastructure submission as demonstrating that the State meets the applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, with the exception of PSD permitting provisions in sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and (J). EPA will be taking action on these elements in a separate action. Additionally, EPA is disapproving Mississippi's infrastructure submission with regard to the majority requirements respecting significant portion of income for state boards in section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).

    III. Final Action

    With the exception of provisions pertaining to PSD permitting requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and (J) and the majority requirements respecting significant portion of income for state boards of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is taking final action to approve Mississippi's November 17, 2011, infrastructure submission because it addresses the required infrastructure elements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. EPA is disapproving in part section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) because a majority of board members that approve permits or enforcement orders in Mississippi may still derive a significant portion of income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders issued by such Mississippi Boards, therefore, its current SIP does not meet the section 128(a)(1) majority requirements respecting significant portion of income. With the exceptions noted above MDEQ has addressed the elements of the CAA 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements pursuant to section 110 of the CAA to ensure that the 2008 Lead NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Mississippi.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 29, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 11, 2015. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart Z—Mississippi 2. Section 52.1270(e) is amended by adding a new entry “110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards” at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.1270 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Mississippi Non-Regulatory Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable
  • geographic or
  • nonattainment area
  • State submittal date/effective date EPA approval date Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) Infrastructure Requirement for 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards 11/4/2011 3/30/15 [Insert citation of publication] With the exception of provisions pertaining to PSD permitting requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and (J) and the majority of requirements respecting significant portion of income of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (related to section 128(a)(2)).
    3. Section 52.1272 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 52.1272 Approval status.

    (c) Disapproval. With respect to the significant portion of income requirement of section 128(a)(1), the provisions included in the October 11, 2012, infrastructure SIP submission did not preclude at least a majority of the members of the Mississippi Board from receiving a significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders issued by the Mississippi Boards. Because a majority of board members may still derive a significant portion of income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders issued by the Mississippi Boards, the Mississippi SIP does not meet the section 128(a)(1) majority requirements respecting significant portion of income, and as such, EPA is today proposing to disapprove the State's 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) submission as it relates only to this portion of section 128(a)(1).

    [FR Doc. 2015-06765 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0636; FRL-9922-77-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Revision to Allegheny County Rules; Preconstruction Permit Requirements—Nonattainment; New Source Review AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting full approval of a revision to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted on June 25, 2012 (June 2012 SIP submittal) by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) on behalf of the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) as amended by PADEP in letters dated February 20, 2013 and June 27, 2014. The SIP revision pertains to ACHD's Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) preconstruction permitting regulations which incorporate by reference Pennsylvania's NNSR provisions. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on April 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0636. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, and 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105; and Allegheny County Health Department, Bureau of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, 301 39th Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15201.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Wentworth, (215) 814-2183, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background and Summary of SIP Revision

    On December 17, 2014 (79 FR 75104), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed full approval of the June 2012 SIP submittal which included revisions to the ACHD's NNSR program contained in the Pennsylvania SIP. The revisions to ACHD's NNSR program include ACHD's Article XXI which incorporates by reference Pennsylvania's NNSR provisions at 25 Pa. Code 127.201-127.217. The June 2012 SIP submittal also includes other changes to ACHD's NNSR program including changes to regulatory definitions and text, deletions of certain provisions, reordered paragraphs, and inclusion of plantwide applicability limit requirements.

    ACHD amended the ACHD NNSR regulations at Article XXI, sections 2101 and 2102, to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.165. This approval action replaces the previous version of Article XXI which was approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on November 14, 2002. See 67 FR 68935.

    The June 2012 SIP submittal includes amendments to the following sections of ACHD's Rules and Regulations, Article XXI: section 2101.20 (Definitions); section 2102.04 (Installation permits); section 2102.06 (Major Sources Locating in or Impacting a Nonattainment Area); and section 2102.08 (Emissions Offset Registration). After the June 2012 SIP submittal, PADEP had provided two letters clarifying the June 2012 SIP submittal. In a letter dated February 20, 2013, PADEP stated it had inadvertently redacted via strike out certain regulatory text from one provision in an ACHD regulation submitted for SIP approval in the June 2012 SIP submittal. PADEP accidentally deleted language at the end of subsection (f) of ACHD's Rules and Regulations, Article XXI, section 2102.06(f) (Requirements for Modeling). The February 20, 2013 PADEP letter requested EPA to include the full text of Article XXI, section 2102.06(f) for the revised Pennsylvania SIP including the text inadvertently deleted in the June 2012 SIP submission.1

    1 For the Pennsylvania SIP, ACHD's Article XXI, section 2102.06(f) (Requirements for Modeling) should read as follows: “Where air quality models are used to meet the provisions of this section, modeling shall be based on the applicable models and other requirements specified in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W (Guideline on Air Quality Models). Where an air quality model is inappropriate, the model may be modified or another model may be substituted only on a case-by-case basis at the Department's discretion upon written approval by the administrator of EPA. In addition, use of a modified or substituted model must be subject to notice and opportunity for public comment under procedures set forth in 40 CFR 51.102.”

    In a second letter from PADEP dated June 27, 2014, PADEP modified the June 2012 SIP submittal and withdrew from its SIP submittal specific language from an ACHD regulation included in the June 2012 SIP submittal. The regulatory text PADEP withdrew from our consideration for inclusion in the Pennsylvania SIP was regulatory text in ACHD's Rules and Regulations, Article XXI, section 2102.06(b)(1), (b)(3)(a), (e), and (g) which provided a process for automatically incorporating additions, revisions, or deletions from Pennsylvania's NNSR regulations into ACHD's SIP effective on the date of revision to Pennsylvania's NNSR regulations.2 See 79 FR 75104 (discussing withdrawn text language). As a result of PADEP's June 27, 2014 letter, the language withdrawn by Pennsylvania from the June 2012 SIP submittal is not part of this rulemaking action. However, as a result of PADEP's February 20, 2013 letter, the inadvertently redacted language from ACHD's Rules and Regulations, Article XXI, section 2102.06(f) is part of this rulemaking language.

    2 The language excluded from the Pennsylvania SIP from ACHD's Rules and Regulations, Article XXI, section 2102.06(b)(1), (b)(3)(a), (e), and (g) is the following language “[a]dditions, revisions, or deletions to such regulations by the Commonwealth are incorporated in this Subsection and are effective on the date established by the state regulation, unless otherwise established by regulation under this Article.”

    EPA's November 17, 2014 technical support document (TSD) explains in detail the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP contained in the Commonwealth's June 2012 SIP submittal. The TSD is included in the docket for this rulemaking action and is available online at www.regulations.gov. The TSD also explains in detail the language withdrawn from ACHD's Article XXI, section 2102.06, includes EPA's analysis of the June 2012 SIP submittal, and provides support for the proposed and final actions on the submittal. Because ACHD incorporated by reference Pennsylvania's SIP approved NNSR regulations into ACHD's NNSR regulations, EPA stated in the NPR there was no need to re-evaluate the same NNSR elements EPA had already approved for the Pennsylvania SIP on May 14, 2012. As discussed in the NPR and in the TSD, the June 2012 SIP submittal includes revisions to ACHD's NNSR program which are consistent with the CAA, with currently promulgated Federal NNSR regulations, and with NNSR regulations which EPA has previously approved into Pennsylvania's SIP.

    The NPR and TSD contain detailed discussions of the Pennsylvania SIP submission for Allegheny County and EPA's rationale for approving the June 2012 SIP submittal which addresses NNSR requirements in the CAA and its implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.165 applicable as of the time of the June 2012 SIP submittal. Therefore, those discussions will not be restated here. No comments were received on the NPR.

    II. Final Action

    EPA is approving as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP the Commonwealth's June 2012 SIP submittal, as amended by PADEP in letters dated February 20, 2013 and June 27, 2014, which includes ACHD's NNSR regulations at Article XXI, sections 2101 and 2102.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rulemaking action, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text proposing to include in a final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the ACHD regulations at Article XXI, sections 2101 and 2102 regarding Nonattainment New Source Review permitting requirements for Allegheny County. The EPA has made and will continue to make, these documents generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 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 rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 29, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) This final rule approves Allegheny County's nonattainment new source review (NNSR) preconstruction air quality permit program.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: March 13, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph (c)(2) is amended by: a. Under Part A, revising the 7th entry for “2101.20”; and b. Under Part B, revising the entries for “2102.04”, “2102.06”, “2102.08.”
    § 52.2020 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    (2) * * *

    Article XX or XXI citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation/ § 52.2063 citation *         *         *         *         *         *         * Part A—General *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2101.20 Definitions 4/3/2012 3/30/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] Revise the latest entry dated 11/26/14, 79 FR 70471 by revising the existing definition of “Major Source” and “Major Modification”. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Part B—Permits Generally *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2102.04 Permits Generally 4/3/2012 3/30/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         * 2102.06 Major Sources Locating in or Impacting a Nonattainment Area 4/3/2012 3/30/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] As per request by PADEP in a letter to EPA dated June 27, 2014, the following language appearing at paragraph b.1; subparagraph b.3.A; and Subsections e and g, is excluded from the SIP: “Additions, revisions, or deletions to such regulations by the Commonwealth are incorporated in this Subsection and are effective on the date established by the state regulation, unless otherwise established by regulation under this Article.” As per letter from PADEP dated 2/20/2013, the June 25, 2012 SIP submission inadvertently deleted language from the end of subsection (f) of the regulation submitted with SIP submittal. The SIP revision incorporating Article XXI § 2102.06(f) should read as follows “f. Requirements for Modeling. Where air quality models are used to meet the provisions of this section, modeling shall be based on the applicable models and other requirements specified in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix W (Guideline on Air Quality Models). Where an air quality model is inappropriate, the model may be modified or another model may be substituted only on a case-by-case basis at the Department's discretion upon written approval by the administrator of EPA. In addition, use of a modified or substituted model must be subject to notice and opportunity for public comment under procedures set forth in 40 CFR 51.102.” *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2102.08 Emission Offset Registration 4/3/2012 3/30/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-07106 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0352; FRL-9925-51-Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Montana Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Billings AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Montana. On July 13, 2011, the Governor of Montana's designee submitted to EPA a second 10-year maintenance plan for the Billings area for the carbon monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This maintenance plan addresses maintenance of the CO NAAQS for a second 10-year period beyond the original redesignation. EPA is also approving an alternative monitoring strategy for the Billings CO maintenance area, which was submitted by the Governor's designee on June 22, 2012.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective April 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0352. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Adam Clark, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7104, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.

    (ii) The initials CO mean or refer to carbon monoxide.

    (iii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

    (iv) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

    (v) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

    (vi) The words Montana and State mean or refer to the State of Montana.

    I. Background

    Eight years after an area is redesignated to attainment, Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A(b) requires the state to submit a subsequent maintenance plan to EPA, covering a second 10-year period.1 This maintenance plan must demonstrate continued compliance with the NAAQS during this second 10-year period. On July 13, 2011, the Governor of Montana's designee submitted to EPA a second 10-year maintenance plan for the Billings area for the CO NAAQS.

    1 In this case, the initial maintenance period extended through 2012. Thus, the second 10-year period extends through 2022.

    Along with the revised Billings Maintenance Plan, the State submitted a CO maintenance plan for the Great Falls, Montana maintenance area, and an alternative strategy for monitoring continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in all of the State's CO maintenance areas on July 13, 2011.2 The State submitted the alternative monitoring strategy in order to conserve resources by discontinuing the gaseous CO ambient monitors in both the Billings and Great Falls CO maintenance areas. We commented on the State's “Alternative Monitoring Strategy,” and the State submitted a revised version of the strategy, which incorporated our comments on June 22, 2012.

    2 In addition to Billings and Great Falls, the Missoula, MT CO maintenance area was included in the July 13, 2011 Alternative Monitoring Strategy.

    In a document published on December 2, 2014, we proposed approval of the Billings second 10-year maintenance plan and the associated “Alternative Monitoring Strategy.” (79 FR 71369)

    II. Response to Comments

    The comment period for our December 2, 2014 proposed rule was open for 30 days. We did not receive any comments on the proposed action.

    III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the revised Billings Maintenance Plan submitted on July 13, 2011. This maintenance plan meets the applicable CAA requirements and EPA has determined it is sufficient to provide for maintenance of the CO NAAQS over the course of the second 10-year maintenance period out to 2022.

    EPA is also approving the State's Alternative Monitoring Strategy, submitted on June 22, 2012, for the Billings CO maintenance area. We are not approving application of the Alternative Monitoring Strategy in other areas of Montana with this action, as the Alternative Monitoring Strategy must be considered on a case-by-case basis specific to the circumstances of each particular CO maintenance area rather than broadly.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 29, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 17, 2015. Debra H. Thomas, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart BB—Montana 2. Section 52.1373 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 52.1373 Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.

    (b) Revisions to the Montana State Implementation Plan, revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Billings, as submitted by the Governor's Designee on July 13, 2011, and the associated Alternative Monitoring Strategy for Billings, as submitted by the Governor's Designee on June 22, 2012.

    [FR Doc. 2015-07227 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0033; FRL-9925-19-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Public Participation for Air Quality Permit Applications AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking a direct final action to approve two provisions submitted by the State of Texas as revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) on July 2, 2010, specific to the applicability of the public notice requirements to applications for Plant-Wide Applicability (PAL) permits and standard permits for concrete batch plants without enhanced controls. Today's direct final action will complete the rulemaking process started in our December 13, 2012, proposal and approve the public notice provisions into the Texas SIP. The EPA is also taking direct final action to convert the public notice applicability provisions for Texas Flexible Permits from a final conditional approval to a full approval. The EPA is taking this action under section 110 and parts C and D of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on May 29, 2015 without further notice, unless the EPA receives relevant adverse comments by April 29, 2015. If the EPA receives such comments, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0033, by one of the following methods:

    http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions.

    • Email: Adina Wiley at wiley.adin&

    • Mail or delivery: Ms. Adina Wiley, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0033. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information through http://www.regulations.gov or email, if you believe that it is CBI or otherwise protected from disclosure. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means that the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment along with any disk or CD-ROM submitted. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption and should be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Adina Wiley, 214-665-2115, [email protected] To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Ms. Adina Wiley or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

    Table of Contents I. Background II. The EPA's Evaluation A. Public Notice Applicability for Applications for PALs and Standard Permits for Concrete Batch Plants Without Enhanced Controls B. Public Notice Applicability for Applications for New and Amended Flexible Permits III. Final Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    The Clean Air Act at section 110(a)(2)(C) requires States to develop and implement permitting programs for attainment and nonattainment areas that cover both construction and modification of stationary sources. The EPA codified minimum requirements for these State permitting programs including public participation and notification requirements at 40 CFR 51.160—51.164.

    On June 2, 2010, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) adopted amendments to 30 TAC Chapter 39, Public Notice; Chapter 55, Requests for Reconsideration and Contested Case Hearings; Public Comment; and Chapter 116, Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification; and corresponding revisions to the Texas SIP. Chairman Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., submitted these amendments to the EPA for approval as revisions to the Texas SIP in a letter dated July 2, 2010.

    The EPA has taken final action on the majority of the July 2, 2010, SIP submittal for public notice. But, through inadvertent errors, we have neglected to complete the rulemaking process for the public notice applicability provisions for applications for PAL permits at 30 TAC section 39.402(a)(8), standard permits for concrete batch plants without enhanced controls at 30 TAC section 39.402(a)(11), and new and amended flexible permits at 30 TAC section 39.402(a)(4) and (a)(5).

    II. The EPA's Evaluation A. Public Notice Applicability for Applications for PALs and Standard Permits for Concrete Batch Plants Without Enhanced Controls

    The EPA proposed approval of the majority of the July 2, 2010, Texas SIP submittal on December 13, 2012, at 77 FR 74129. In this proposed rulemaking and our accompanying Technical Support Document, the EPA presented our evaluation and preliminary determination for the applicability of the public notice requirements for applications for PAL permits at 30 TAC 39.402(a)(8) and standard permits for concrete batch plants without enhanced controls at 30 TAC 39.402(a)(11). In both instances, we determined that the public notice provisions in Chapter 39 for each type of permit application were consistent with all applicable federal requirements and would be fully approvable into the Texas SIP. However, we neglected to include the specific provisions at 30 TAC 39.402(a)(8) and 39.402(a)(11) in our “Proposed Action” statement in the December 13, 2012, Federal Register document. While the public had the opportunity to review and comment on our evaluation and preliminary determination of approvability of these provisions, we never formally proposed these provisions for approval into the Texas SIP. As such, we did not finalize approval of 30 TAC 39.402(a)(8) and (a)(11) with the majority of the public notice provisions on January 6, 2014 at 79 FR 551.

    Please see the EPA's December 13, 2012, proposed approval at 77 FR 74129 for our technical evaluation. The evaluation of the applicability of the public notice provisions for PAL permit applications can be found at page 74136. The evaluation of the applicability of the public notice provisions for permit applications for standard permits for concrete batch plants can be found at pages 74136-74140. The Technical Support Document dated December 12, 2012, available in the rulemaking docket for this action, provides additional details to support our determination that the public notice applicability provisions at 30 TAC 39.402(a)(8) and (a)(11) are consistent with federal requirements and fully approvable into the Texas SIP. We incorporate our previous evaluation of these two provisions into this action. We note that because the evaluation was included in our previous preamble and TSD, we did accept and respond to any comments received regarding the applicability of public notice provisions for applications for PALs and standard permits for concrete batch plants without enhanced controls. The EPA received and responded to comments about PAL public notice, but none specific to the applicability provision at 30 TAC section 39.402(a)(8). See 79 FR 551, at 556 and 557-558. Our evaluation and preliminary determination of approvability did not change as a result of these comments. The EPA did not receive any comments specific to the applicability of the public notice provisions for standard permits for concrete batch plants without enhanced controls at 30 TAC 39.402(a)(11); therefore our evaluation of that provision also remains unchanged.

    Today's final action is merely correcting our previous error in failing to propose and finalize incorporation of these two provisions into the SIP on the basis of our previous technical evaluation and preliminary determination. The EPA has not changed our rationale. We continue to believe that 30 TAC 39.402(a)(8) and (a)(11) are fully approvable and it is our intent to include these provisions in the Texas SIP.

    B. Public Notice Applicability for Applications for New and Amended Flexible Permits

    The EPA finalized a conditional approval of the Texas Flexible Permits Program on July 14, 2014, at 79 FR 40666. Our final action included conditional approval of the public notice applicability provisions for applications for new and amended flexible permits at 30 TAC sections 39.402(a)(4) and (a)(5) as submitted on July 2, 2010. As a result of this action, the public notice provisions at 30 TAC sections 39.402(a)(4) and (a)(5) became a part of the Texas SIP contingent upon the TCEQ satisfying the conditions of the December 9, 2013, commitment letter.1

    1 The December 9, 2013, commitment letter required changes to the Flexible Permits Program in 30 TAC Chapter 116, but did not require any changes to the public notice requirements for new and amended flexible permits at 30 TAC sections 39.402(a)(4) and (a)(5).

    In a subsequent proposed rulemaking on December 31, 2014, the EPA determined that the TCEQ satisfied all commitments from the December 9, 2013, commitment letter and thus we proposed to convert our final conditional approval of the Texas Flexible Permits Program to a full approval. See 79 FR 78752. However, we neglected to include the public notice applicability provisions at 30 TAC section 39.402(a)(4) and (a)(5) in that proposal.

    Today's final action is merely correcting our previous error in failing to include the public notice applicability provisions for Flexible Permits in our December 2014 proposal to convert the conditional approval to a full approval. Because the EPA has determined that the TCEQ satisfied all commitments from the December 9, 2013, commitment letter, the public notice provisions for the Texas Flexible Permit program at 30 TAC sections 39.402(a)(4) and (a)(5) should be converted to a full approval. The conversion of the remainder of the conditionally approved Texas Flexible Permit program to a full approval will be addressed in a separate rulemaking.

    III. Final Action

    We are approving through a direct final action revisions to the Texas SIP that pertain to the applicability of public notice provisions for PAL permit applications at 30 TAC section 39.402(a)(8) and for applications for standard permits for concrete batch plants without enhanced controls at 30 TAC section 39.402(a)(11). The EPA has determined that these two provisions are consistent with all applicable federal requirements for public notice requirements for PAL permit applications and minor NSR. Therefore, we are approving 30 TAC sections 39.402(a)(8) and 39.402(a)(11) into the Texas SIP as submitted on July 2, 2010. In today's direct final action, the EPA is also converting our final conditional approval to a final full approval for the applicability of public notice provisions for applications for new and amended flexible permits at 30 TAC sections 39.402(a)(4) and (a)(5). The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse comments are received.

    Today's direct final rule will be effective on May 29, 2015 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse comment by April 29, 2015.

    If we receive relevant adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We will address those public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Please note that if we receive relevant adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of revisions to the Texas regulations concerning the applicability of public notice requirements as described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 29, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: March 16, 2015. Samuel Coleman, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart SS—Texas 2. In § 52.2270, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entry “Section 39.402” to read as follows:
    § 52.2270 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP State citation Title/subject State
  • approval/
  • submittal
  • date
  • EPA approval date Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter 39—Public Notice Subchapter H—Applicability and General Provisions Section 39.402 Applicability to Air Quality Permits and Permit Amendments 6/2/2012 3/30/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] SIP includes 39.402(a)(1)-(a)(6), (a)(8), and (a)(11). *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-07124 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 711 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0809; FRL-9924-84] RIN 2070-AK01 Withdrawal of Partial Exemption for Certain Chemical Substances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In the Federal Register issue of January 27, 2015, EPA published a direct final rule that amended the list of chemical substances that are partially exempt from reporting additional information under the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule to add certain chemical substances. EPA received an adverse comment pertinent to all six of the chemical substances that are the subject of that rule. This document accordingly withdraws the direct final rule.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective March 30, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Loraine Passe, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-9064; 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. What rule is being withdrawn?

    In the January 27, 2015 Federal Register (80 FR 4482) (FRL-9921-56), EPA added certain chemical substances to the list of chemical substances that are partially exempt from reporting additional information under the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule. EPA later received an adverse comment that is pertinent to all six of the chemical substances that are the subject of that rule (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0809). In accordance with the procedures described in the January 27, 2015 Federal Register document, EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule. EPA anticipates that it will publish, in the near future, a notice proposing to add these six chemical substances to the list of chemical substances that are partially exempt from reporting additional information under the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule.

    II. How do I access the docket?

    To access the docket, please go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions using the docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0809. Additional information about the Docket Facility is also provided under ADDRESSES in the January 27, 2015 Federal Register document. If you have questions, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    The reviews discussed in the January 27, 2015 Federal Register document are not applicable to this final rule because it is simply a withdrawal.

    IV. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    Pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., EPA will submit a report containing this rule amendment 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 action 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 711

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Administrative practice and procedure.

    Dated: March 20, 2015. James Jones, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 711—TSCA CHEMICAL DATA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 1. The authority citation for part 711 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2607(a).

    2. In § 711.6, in Table 2 of paragraph (b)(2)(iv), the following CASRN numbers are removed as set forth below.
    § 711.6 Chemical substances for which information is not required.

    (b) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (iv) * * *

    Table 2—CASRN of Partially Exempt Chemical Substances CASRN Chemical *         *         *         *         *         *         * 61788-61-2 Fatty acids, tallow, Me esters. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 67762-26-9 Fatty acids, C14-18 and C16-18-unsatd., Me esters. 67762-38-3 Fatty acids, C16-18 and C-18-unsatd., Me esters. 67784-80-9 Soybean oil, Me esters. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 129828-16-6 Fatty acids, canola oil, Me esters 515152-40-6. Fatty acids, corn oil, Me esters. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-06933 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management 43 CFR Part 3160 [LLWO300000 L13100000.PP0000 14X] RIN 1004-AE26 Oil and Gas; Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands Correction

    In rule document 2015-06658, appearing on pages 16128-16222, in the Issue of March 26, 2015, make the following corrections:

    § 3162.3-3 Subsequent well operations; Hydraulic fracturing. [Corrected]

    1. On page 16218, in § 3162.3-3 (a)(5), in the table in the first column, in the fifth row, the entry “(5) Authorized drilling operations were completed after September 22, 2015.” should read “(5) Authorized drilling operations were completed after December 26, 2014.”

    2. On the same page, in § 3162.3-3, in the same table, in the first column, in the sixth row, the entry “(6) Authorized drilling activities were completed before September 22, 2015” should read “(6) Authorized drilling activities were completed before December 26, 2014.”

    [FR Doc. C1-2015-06658 Filed 3-26-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
    OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 45 CFR Part 800 RIN 3206-AN12 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Establishment of the Multi-State Plan Program for the Affordable Insurance Exchanges; Correction AGENCY:

    Office of Personnel Management.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the Federal Register of February 24, 2015 (80 FR 9649). The document implementing modifications to the Multi-State Plan (MSP) Program based on the experience of the Program to date.

    DATES:

    Effective March 26, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cameron Stokes by telephone at (202) 606-2128, by FAX at (202) 606-4430, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In FR Doc. 2015-03421, appearing on page 9649 in the Federal Register of Tuesday, February 24, 2015, the following corrections are made:

    1. On page 9655, in the third column, the heading “List of Subjects in 5 CFR part 800” is revised to read, “List of Subjects in 45 CFR part 800.”

    2. On page 9655, in the third column, the last paragraph should be revised to read:

    “Accordingly, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is revising part 800 to title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, to read as follows:”

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Steve Hickman, Regulatory Affairs, Office of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07330 Filed 3-26-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6325-64-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families 45 CFR Part 1340 Technical Regulation: Removal of Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention and Treatment Act Implementing Regulations AGENCY:

    Children's Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Children and Families is removing the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) regulations in their entirety. These regulations no longer apply to the CAPTA programs they were originally designed to implement because of major legislative changes to CAPTA since the regulations were issued.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective June 29, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathleen McHugh, Director of Policy, Children's Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, (202) 401-5789 or by email at [email protected] Do not email comments to this address.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Statutory Authority

    This final rule is published under the authority granted to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services by 42 U.S.C. 5101, et seq.

    In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), it is the practice of the Secretary to offer interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, these regulations merely reflect statutory changes and remove unnecessary and obsolete regulatory provisions. Removal of the regulations does not establish or affect substantive policy. Therefore, the Secretary has determined, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), that public comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.

    Background

    There have been major and extensive legislative changes to CAPTA since the CAPTA regulations in 45 CFR part 1340 were issued in 1983 and updated in 1990. The regulations provided guidance to States to implement CAPTA programs that were in effect prior to 1996. These programs changed significantly beginning with the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 1996. This CAPTA reauthorization overhauled the CAPTA state grant program, including the program authorizations for appropriations, making the regulations obsolete. Later, CAPTA reauthorizations also amended the State grant program in section 106 of CAPTA, making the regulations outdated since they do not include all of the CAPTA state grant program requirements contained in the law.

    Furthermore, Section 6 of the President's Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 called for retrospective analyses of existing rules “that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” As such, we believe it is unnecessary and outmoded to implement the CAPTA state grant programs through regulation. We believe the program requirements are made clear in the statute and have provided policy interpretations and program instructions to implement the program since 1996 in lieu of regulations. Removing the CAPTA regulations at 45 CFR part 1340 would be in keeping with Executive Order 13563.

    In addition, section 109 of CAPTA instructs the Secretary to adopt regulations that are “necessary or appropriate to ensure that there is effective coordination” among CAPTA programs. We believe these regulations are no longer necessary or appropriate to ensure coordination because we have provided policy interpretations and program instructions to guide such coordination.

    For these reasons, based on our analysis of 45 CFR part 1340, we are removing 45 CFR part 1340 from the Code of Federal Regulations.

    Section-by-Section Discussion of the Provisions of This Rule Subpart A—General Provisions Section 1340.1 Purpose and Scope

    We are removing section 1340.1 because it is outdated and non-essential to the current operations of the CAPTA programs. Paragraphs (a) and (b) clarify the role and activities of the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, which no longer exists; paragraph 1340.1(c) is extraneous because it only indicates that the requirements related to child abuse and neglect applicable to title IV-B of the Social Security Act are implemented by regulation at 45 CFR parts 1355 and 1357; and paragraph 1340.1(d) is unnecessary because it simply restates the prohibition on CAPTA funding for the construction of facilities that is provided for in section 108 of CAPTA.

    Section 1340.2 Definitions

    We are removing the definitions in section 1340.2 because we are removing all of the sections to which the definitions apply. In addition, they are non-essential to the operations of the CAPTA programs for the following reasons. Paragraph (a) defines a “properly constituted authority” which is no longer relevant to the state plan requirements; paragraph (b) defines “Act” to mean the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, which is unnecessary; paragraph (c) defines “Center” as the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, which no longer exists. Paragraph (d) and its subparagraphs define and clarify the terms “child abuse and neglect”, “sexual abuse”, “negligent treatment or maltreatment”, “threatened harm to a child's health or welfare” and “a person responsible for a child's welfare”. These definitions are outdated and superseded by statutory definitions; paragraphs (e) through (h) define “Commissioner”, “grants”, “Secretary” and “State” which are either self-explanatory or defined in statute.

    Section 1340.3 Applicability of Department-Wide Regulations

    We are removing section 1340.3 because we are removing all of the sections that the Department-wide regulations are applied to by section 1340.3. In addition, these referenced regulations apply to CAPTA programs through the referenced Department-wide regulation itself or are no longer applicable to CAPTA grants.

    Sections 1340.3(a) and (b) specify the Department of Health and Human Services regulations that are applicable to all grants and contracts made under this part:

    • 45 CFR part 16—Procedures of the Departmental Grant Appeals Board

    • 45 CFR part 46—Protection of human subjects

    • 45 CFR part 74—Administration of grants

    • 45 CFR part 75—Informal grant appeals procedures

    • 45 CFR part 80—Nondiscrimination under programs receiving Federal assistance through the Department of Health and Human Services—effectuation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

    • 45 CFR part 81—Practice and procedure for hearings under part 80

    • 45 CFR part 84—Nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap in programs and activities receiving or benefiting from Federal financial assistance

    • 48 CFR Chapter 1—Federal Acquisition Regulations

    • 48 CFR Chapter 3—Federal Acquisition Regulations—Department of Health and Human Services.

    Section 1340.4 Coordination Requirements

    We are removing the coordination requirements in section 1340.4 because it is superseded by coordination language in section 101 of CAPTA, enacted in the CAPTA Amendments of 1996.

    Subpart B—Grants to States Sections 1340.10 Purpose of This Subpart, 1340.11 Allocation of Funds Available, 1340.12 Application Process, 1340.13 Approval of Applications, 1340.14 Eligibility Requirements and 1340.15 Services and Treatment for Disabled Infants

    We are removing sections 1340.10 through 1340.15 because they are obsolete. Prior to the enactment of the CAPTA Amendments of 1996, section 107 of CAPTA authorized funding for two State grant programs: (1) To assist States to develop, strengthen and carry out child abuse and neglect prevention and treatment programs; and (2) to assist States in responding to reports of medical neglect (including the withholding of medically indicated treatment from disabled infants with life-threatening conditions), and improving the provision of services to disabled infants with life-threatening conditions and their families. Sections 1340.10 through 1340.14 applied to the former and 1340.15 to the latter and are not applicable to the current CAPTA State grant program in section 106.

    The CAPTA Amendments of 1996 and later amendments significantly revised the State grant requirements in law prior to 1996. Now, States must submit a State plan in order to be eligible to receive a grant, including extensive State plan assurances. There is no longer the grant application and approval process specified in the regulations and States now provide assurances in their State plans that certain activities will be carried out using the grant funds to achieve the objectives of the law.

    The protections for disabled infants (commonly known as “Baby Doe”) are now included in the statute in the form of a State plan assurance. Specifically, States are required under section 106(b)(2)(C) of CAPTA to have procedures to respond to reports of withholding medically indicated treatment from disabled infants with life-threatening conditions. In addition “withholding of medically indicated treatment” is defined in section 111 of CAPTA. No longer is there a specific State grant program and funding for improving the provision of services to disabled infants with life-threatening conditions and their families.

    Subpart C—Discretionary Grants and Contracts Section 1340.20 Confidentiality

    We are deleting section 1340.20 because section 106 of CAPTA addresses requirements for state grantees for confidentiality of records, and confidentiality requirements for other grantees can be addressed in the terms and conditions of the grant.

    Appendix to Part 1340—Interpretive Guidelines Regarding CFR 1340.15—Services and Treatment for Disabled Infants

    We are deleting the appendix to Part 1340. The appendix was added through a Final Rule (50 FR 14878) in 1985 to implement a grant program made available through the Child Abuse Amendments of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-457). This grant program is no longer in effect as it was at the time the appendix was added (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-235)).

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13), all Departments are required to submit to OMB for review and approval any reporting or recordkeeping requirements inherent in a proposed or final rule. There are no new requirements as a result of this regulation.

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Secretary certifies, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), and enacted by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), that this regulation will not result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if the regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity.) Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The regulations we are removing are obsolete and no longer applicable to the current law. By removing these outdated regulations, we are ending potential confusion in regard to the status of the regulations among states, grantees and other affected groups seeking information on the CAPTA program rules. There are no budget implications associated with removing the CAPTA regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations.

    Congressional Review

    This final rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8.

    Assessment of Federal Regulation and Policies on Families

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to determine whether a policy or regulation may negatively affect family well-being. If the agency's determination is affirmative, then the agency must prepare an impact assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. The required review of the regulations and policies to determine their effect on family well-being has been completed, and this rule will have a neutral impact on family well-being as defined in the legislation.

    Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132 prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. The regulation has no federalism impact as defined in the Executive Order.

    List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1340

    Child welfare, Grant programs—health, Grant programs—social programs, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Technical assistance, Youth.

    Dated: August 18, 2014. Mark Greenberg, Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. Approved: February 27, 2015. Sylvia M. Burwell, Secretary. Editorial note:

    This document was received for publication by the Office of Federal Register on March 25, 2015.

    Subchapter E—[Removed and Reserved] For the reasons discussed above, under the authority at 42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq. the Administration for Children and Families amends Title 45, Subtitle B, Chapter XIII, by removing and reserving Subchapter E, consisting of part 1340.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07238 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 175 [Docket No. PHMSA-2009-0126, Notice No. 15-3] Hazardous Materials: Spare Fuel Cell Cartridges Containing Flammable Gas Transported by Aircraft in Passenger and Crew Member Checked Baggage AGENCY:

    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notification of a More Definitive Statement.

    SUMMARY:

    PHMSA issued a 2011 final rule in which we did not harmonize with international regulations regarding the carriage of spare fuel cell cartridges in passenger and crew member checked baggage. Lilliputian Systems, Inc. (Lilliputian) contested this final rule, first by filing an administrative appeal, then challenging the final rule in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On January 31, 2014, the Court remanded the rule and ordered PHMSA to provide further explanation for the prohibition on airline passengers and crew carrying flammable gas fuel cell cartridges in their checked baggage, including its response to Lilliputian's comments. 741 F.3d 1309, 1314 (D.C. Cir. 2014). As a result, we are issuing this document which provides a more thorough explanation and substantial evidence to support PHMSA's decision to prohibit the carriage of spare fuel cell cartridges in passenger and crew member checked baggage.

    DATES:

    March 30, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Stevens, Transportation Specialist (Regulations), Standards and Rulemaking Division, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-8553 or, via email: [email protected] or Shawn Wolsey, Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4400 or, via email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    In 2009, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) voted and reissued its Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO Technical Instructions), which lifted the previous restriction of spare fuel cell cartridges for all but Division 4.3 chemistries from passenger and crew member checked baggage. In response, on August 24, 2010, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to harmonize U.S. Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) with updated international standards. These changes included updates to packaging, labeling, and testing requirements to increase harmony with the international rules and promote the flow of goods (75 FR 52070, HM-215K, 8/24/2010). PHMSA stated its goal was “. . . to harmonize without diminishing the level of safety currently provided by the HMR and without imposing undue burdens on the regulated public” and that we “. . . evaluate[d] each amendment on its own merit.” [75 FR 52071]

    Ultimately, PHMSA did not adopt every provision of every set of the international regulations. In the final rule published January 19, 2011 [76 FR 3308], PHMSA revised the 49 CFR 175.10 passenger exceptions to allow passengers and crew members to place certain spare fuel cell cartridges containing a flammable liquid (Class 3) or corrosive material (Class 8) in checked baggage. PHMSA stated, “fuel cell cartridges themselves are subject to much more stringent construction, testing, and packaging requirements than for similar articles (e.g., aerosols).” However, PHMSA limited the scope of spare fuel cell cartridge chemistries allowed in checked baggage by excluding fuel cell cartridges containing Division 2.1 (flammable gas) and Division 4.3 (dangerous when wet) material. In the interest of safety, PHMSA elected to continue the longstanding limitations in the HMR for Division 2.1 (flammable gas) on passenger-carrying aircraft and thus maintained the existing prohibition on the transport of spare fuel cells containing Division 2.1 (flammable gas) in checked baggage. PHMSA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) explained their expressed concern “due to the questionable integrity of [fuel cells] when packed in a passenger's checked baggage” [76 FR 3337].

    As a result of PHMSA's rulemaking, Lilliputian filed an administrative appeal in accordance with 49 CFR 106.110. It requested PHMSA to revise 49 CFR 175.10(a)(19) to align with the ICAO Technical Instructions and allow spare fuel cell cartridges containing Division 2.1 (flammable gas) to be carried in checked baggage. PHMSA granted the administrative appeal by providing Lilliputian and the public additional opportunity for comment in a May 25, 2012 NPRM [77 FR 31274]. The subsequent final rule issued on January 7, 2013 [78 FR 1101] denied the placement of spare Division 2.1 fuel cell cartridges in checked baggage but continued to allow two spare Division 2.1 fuel cell cartridges in carry-on baggage.

    Lilliputian filed a Petition for Review of the Final Order in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on March 8, 2013. In a January 31, 2014, (731 F.3d 1309) decision, the Court remanded the rule and ordered PHMSA to “provide further explanation for the prohibition on airline passengers and crew carrying flammable-gas fuel cell cartridges in their checked baggage, including its response to Lilliputian's comments.” 1

    1 741 F.3d 1314.

    Justification for Denial of the Administrative Appeal

    When PHMSA decides whether to allow an item on a passenger-carrying aircraft, the Department only tolerates extraordinarily low levels of risk. For example, when failure of a component in an airplane could interfere with continued flight and safe landing, the risk of failure must be less than one billion to one.2 This low level of tolerance for risk makes sense because, due to the high volume of air transport, even a very improbable event may eventually occur, and with catastrophic results. Additionally, PHMSA is required by 49 U.S.C. 5108(b) to pursue the “highest degree of safety in pipeline transportation and hazardous materials transportation.” 3 Under 49 U.S.C. 5103(b), PHMSA is authorized to issue regulations for the safe and secure transportation of hazardous materials in commerce, including transportation by air.

    2http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC25.1309-1A.pdf.

    3 PHMSA's Administrator is charged with carrying out all duties and powers vested in the Secretary of Transportation under chapter 51 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code, which governs the transportation of hazardous materials. 49 U.S.C. 108(f)(1).

    The risks presented by flammable gas on airplanes are clear. Flammable gases will burn if mixed with an appropriate amount of air, and an ignition source is present, and confined burning of a flammable gas can lead to detonation. As a result, PHMSA remains concerned with the hazards posed by flammable gases (such as the butane contained in some fuel cells) contributing to a fire in the cargo compartment of a passenger-carrying aircraft. This concern is particularly relevant to carriage in checked baggage, where damage to the fuel cell cartridge and the release of a flammable gas may occur if the baggage is mishandled.

    PHMSA denied Lilliputian's appeal due to the uncertainty of the safety risks posed when combining (1) the uncertainty of how the baggage handling would affect the durability and stability of these products, (2) the possible over-sight of hazmat communication and packaging requirements because the regulations do not apply to passengers, and (3) the limitations of aircraft's fire suppression systems. PHMSA was particularly concerned by the allowance for passengers to transport flammable-gas fuel cells because passengers “are not trained to recognize potential hazards” and “are unlikely to be aware of the safety implications” of improper packaging or handling. Considering those factors combined with the limitations of the aircraft's suppression system, (fire suppression systems “do not prevent fires” and are not “designed to completely extinguish fires”) the safety risks were too great to authorize this exemption. PHMSA further explained that the authorization of any additional flammable gas on an airplane, in addition to the gases contained in the toiletry and medicinal items already allowed, would need to take into account “the cumulative risk of the new authorization combined with existing authorizations.” [78 FR 1104] PHMSA expressed willingness, however, to consider allowing certain fuel cells models on a case-by-case basis. For example, portable oxygen concentrators may be allowed at some point in the future, when experience and testing prove that safe designs exist.

    Because of the risks presented by flammable gases, a number of safety requirements apply to shipments of flammable gas on passenger-carrying aircraft. PHMSA believes there is sufficient basis for its decision because, as previously stated, in the area of aviation safety, there is a very low tolerance for risk. In its decision, PHMSA considered the known risks of flammable gases, coupled with the uncertainties relating to the safety of new fuel cell technology, added to the already high volume of air travel and the catastrophic consequences of any failure.

    Cumulative Risk

    PHMSA's approach to aviation safety is not to permit items merely because they are similar to items already permitted. The authorization of any additional flammable gas on an aircraft, in addition to the toiletry and medicinal items already allowed, needs to take into account the cumulative risk of the new authorization combined with existing authorizations. A limited exception has existed since 1972 for small quantities of such gases in personal medicinal and toiletry items, such as the butane used as a propellant in a small aerosol can or a butane-powered curling iron (49 CFR 175.10(a)(1)(i). However, most Division 2.1 (flammable gas) substances and articles are forbidden from transportation as cargo aboard passenger-carrying aircraft, and thus prohibiting the carriage of spare fuel cell cartridges containing flammable gas in checked baggage is consistent with the agency's longstanding position with regard to flammable gases.

    Checked Baggage

    The exceptions in 49 CFR 175.10 have not been expanded to permit additional flammable gases in checked baggage. As previously noted, allowing transportation of flammable gas in airline passengers' checked baggage would be inconsistent with the exceptions in 49 CFR 175.10. Airline passengers do not comply with the important packaging, labeling, and hazard communication requirements when they put items in their checked baggage, and they may not even be aware of such requirements. Without hazard communication and other notifications to handlers that the passenger's baggage contains flammable gas, checked baggage could be mishandled, damaging the integrity of an improperly packaged container of flammable gas. Negligent packing and excessive handling increases the potential that a container of flammable gas in checked baggage could rupture, creating conditions for an explosion. 76 FR 3337.

    Beginning in 2009, the ICAO began considering whether to change its regulations to allow transport of fuel cells in checked baggage. Prior to that time, fuel cells had been allowed only in carry-on baggage or on one's person, in order to mitigate the risk of the fuel cell cartridge inadvertently coming into contact with an ignition source.4 Although members of the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel were generally supportive of permitting most fuel cells containing flammable liquids in checked baggage, “many were wary of permitting fuel cartridges containing substances of other classes.” In particular, “[s]ome felt further consideration was needed with respect to fuel cell cartridges containing flammable gases.” Some participants suggested that changes not be adopted to allow these new technologies until “experience based on a longer timeframe could be demonstrated.” 5 In the end, ICAO included in its Technical Instructions a provision to allow two spare fuel cell cartridges containing flammable gas in checked baggage. It should be noted that the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel does not operate solely on a consensus basis and that some delegates, including the U.S. Panel Member, were not in agreement with this decision. The U.S. Panel member spoke against the adoption of this provision when the amendment was discussed and agreed to by majority vote during the Dangerous Goods Panel's 22nd meeting (held in Montreal, Canada from October 5-16, 2009).6

    4 With regard to the allowance of fuel cell cartridges in carry-on baggage or on one's person, the risk is mitigated because the fuel cells are contained in a supervised environment. Thus, a flight attendant would be able to extinguish any fires that might occur in a carry-on bag in the event of a fuel cell cartridge inadvertently coming into contact with an ignition source.

    5http://www.icao.int/safety/DangerousGoods/DGP%2022%20Working%20Papers/DGP.22.WP.100.en.pdf at 2.9.4.

    6http://www.icao.int/safety/DangerousGoods/DGP%2022%20Working%20Papers/DGP.22.WP.100.en.pdf.

    FAA Technical Report

    In Lilliputian's comments posted to the docket of the August 24, 2010 NPRM (PHMSA-2009-0126-2027), they posed five recommendations for conducting a proper risk analysis:

    • Any analysis should begin with the risk of ignition or sparking.

    • The analysis should examine the risk of catching fire as a result of an external fire.

    • The analysis should examine whether a fuel cell fire, once ignited, can be effectively extinguished in a timely manner.

    • The analysis should look to any experience involving similar materials.

    • The analysis should evaluate whether the volume of the material is relevant in terms of the risk and managing that risk.

    We believe that the Preliminary Investigation of the Fire Hazard Inherent in Micro Fuel Cell Cartridges (Final Report)7 prepared by the FAA Technical Center did address these recommendations posed by Lilliputian. The report examined the fire risk presented by fuel cells, including cells powered by flammable solids, liquids, and gas, including a test that exposed single, small fuel cells of various types to a low-intensity flame in a controlled environment. Only a few varieties of fuel cells were tested, because the technology was still developing; however, one of the fuel cells tested was a butane fuel cell manufactured by Lilliputian. The test results showed that, of the fuel types tested, “[b]utane produced the most vigorous fire.” The plastic cartridge used by Lilliputian was breached only 45 seconds after exposure to flame and the “butane ignition was rapid, almost explosive”8 (emphasis added). It produced an approximately 1,000-degree Fahrenheit flame, by far the hottest flame produced by any of the materials in the study. While some of the other fuel cell fires were “easily extinguished using Halon 1211,” a fire suppression system commonly used in an aircraft, the butane fire burned so rapidly that the fire suppression system did not activate until after all the butane fuel had been consumed by the fire.

    7 See Document PHMSA-2009-0126-2366 in this docket.

    8 See Document PHMSA-2009-0126-2366 in this docket.

    A Halon 1211 system is not designed to detect fires. The pilot must first see that there is an alert from the fire detection system. Once that happens, the pilot will engage the Halon 1211 system, which will attempt to suppress, but not extinguish, the fire. While airplanes are equipped with fire detection systems, such as Halon 1211, there are no systems on board to detect a gas leak. Thus, if a fuel cell cartridge placed in checked baggage is damaged and allows butane gas to leak into the cargo compartment, there is no way for the pilot to be aware of this. The accumulation of the butane gas, if exposed to a spark, would then cause an explosion and would lead to a catastrophic failure of the airplane.

    The FAA Technical Center tests were designed to determine the flammability characteristics of fuel cell cartridges. The tests were conducted on single cartridges exposed to a controlled fire. The tests did not take into account the interaction of one or more cartridges and any adjacent combustible material (i.e., clothing, electronic devices, etc.) or the effect of fuel cell cartridges in propagating a fire. We do know from the test results that butane produced the most vigorous fire, the cartridge provided the least amount of protection from an external fire and, once penetrated, the liquid butane burned rapidly and filled the test chamber with fire. The butane fire also registered the highest temperature (1000 degrees Fahrenheit) and heat flux measurements of all tests conducted. The plastic cartridge used by Lilliputian was breached only 45 seconds after exposure to flame, and the butane ignition was rapid, almost explosive. Thus, the test results from the Final Report support our concern that the inherent hazards of compressed flammable gases, as demonstrated by exposure to a fire involving a fuel cell cartridge containing an estimated volume of only 50 cc or less of butane, would pose an unacceptable risk in air transportation.

    As PHMSA stated in the preamble to the January 19, 2011 final rule, Federal hazmat law (49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) and policy encourages the harmonization of domestic and international standards for hazardous materials transportation to the extent practicable, but the law also permits PHMSA to depart from international standards in order to promote public safety. When considering the adoption of international standards under the HMR, PHMSA reviews and evaluates each amendment on its own merit, on the basis of its overall impact on transportation safety, and on the economic implications associated with its adoption. Our goal is to harmonize without diminishing the level of safety and without imposing undue burdens on the regulated public. In this instance, we believe that restricting the carriage of flammable gas fuel cell cartridges to be a necessary variation to the ICAO Technical Instructions that enhances the safety of aircraft passengers without imposing an unreasonable regulatory burden. Under Federal hazmat law, we are tasked with balancing the needs of public safety with economic burdens when considering harmonization with international standards. Consequently, because we elected not to revise the HMR to align with the ICAO Technical Instructions, we believe we did strike a balance by continuing to permit flammable gas fuel cell cartridges in carry-on baggage.

    Disparate Treatment of Aerosols and Butane-Powered Articles

    The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also was concerned that PHMSA did not provide a reasoned explanation and substantial evidence for the disparate treatment of fuel cell cartridges as opposed to other products, particularly medicinal and toiletry items that contain flammable gases (i.e. aerosols).

    Aerosols

    In order to determine if a hazardous material is permitted in checked baggage, PHMSA must take into account the cumulative risk of any new authorizations combined with any existing authorizations. Under certain conditions, 49 CFR 175.10 permits the carriage of aerosols in checked baggage on a passenger-carrying aircraft. This limited exception has existed since 1972 for aerosol containers in small quantities in personal medicinal and toiletry items. Such items include hair spray, deodorant, and certain medicinal products.

    To comply with the ban on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that became effective January 1, 1994, 9 the aerosol industry changed the type of propellant used in their products. Unfortunately, this new type of propellant is flammable and, because of its widespread use, there was concern of a risk-risk tradeoff (ozone layer damage versus cargo compartment safety on passenger-carrying aircraft). PHMSA and FAA were concerned that static electricity inherent in cargo compartments could ignite a leaking flammable aerosol container in passenger baggage.

    9http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/aerosol/qa.html.

    Based on its concerns, PHMSA reviewed incident reports in the Hazardous Materials Identification System (HMIS) database and specific incidents that occurred during baggage handling provided by the FAA. Accordingly, PHMSA and FAA agreed to work together in certain areas to improve the safe transportation of flammable aerosols by adopting regulatory and non-regulatory solutions. For example, each agency agreed to: (1) Actively participate in the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel that reviews the items that passengers are permitted to carry in the cabin and in checked baggage; (2) partner with the Consumer Specialty Products Association to enhance the design of aerosol products; and (3) amend the HMR to require or clarify that any release of hazmat in passenger baggage must be reported. Further, in a final rule published on December 20, 2004, PHMSA amended the HMR by requiring that release devices on aerosols be protected by a cap or other suitable means to prevent the inadvertent release of contents when placed in passenger or crew member baggage. [69 FR 76179; (HM-215G)] Because of the prevalence of aerosols in everyday travel, these adopted safety measures were deemed sufficient while not being overly burdensome to the traveling public. However, PHMSA continues to monitor this issue very closely and will respond to any negative trends accordingly.

    While PHMSA and FAA adopted safety measures to address the risks associated with permitting aerosols in checked baggage, the amount of butane in a fuel cartridge (200 mL) is approximately twice as much as the amount utilized in a typical 16 ounce aerosol can. Given the amount of electronic devices that passengers typically travel with, the cumulative volume of butane from fuel cell cartridges that passengers could bring aboard an aircraft is a concern. As a result, PHMSA has determined there is too much risk in allowing fuel cell cartridges in checked baggage in addition to the currently authorized flammable aerosols when stowed in inaccessible cargo compartments on passenger-carrying aircraft.

    Butane-Powered Curling Iron Articles

    As previously stated, 49 CFR 175.10 prescribes certain conditional exceptions to the HMR for passengers, crewmembers, and air operators for hazardous materials contained in their carry-on (including on one's person) and checked baggage. In paragraph (a)(6), hair curlers (curling irons), containing a hydrocarbon gas such as butane, are excepted from the requirements of the HMR in checked baggage. Flammable gas refills for such curlers are not permitted in carry-on or checked baggage. (emphasis added).

    In an NPRM published January 23, 2015 (80 FR 3836; [HM-218H]), PHMSA is considering prohibiting butane-powered curling iron articles in checked baggage. We believe the risk posed by flammable gases in an inaccessible compartment on a passenger-carrying aircraft is clear. Flammable gases will burn if mixed with an appropriate amount of air and confined burning of a flammable gas can lead to detonation. As a result, we remain concerned with the flammability hazard posed by butane and other flammable gases and the ability of such gases to propagate or contribute to a fire in the cargo compartment of an aircraft. This concern is particularly relevant to carriage in checked baggage, where damage to the curling iron and the subsequent release of a flammable gas may occur if the baggage is mishandled or the article itself is compromised.

    Conclusion

    Because of the risks posed by flammable gas, a number of safety requirements apply to cargo shipments of flammable gas on passenger-carrying aircraft. As previously stated, most Division 2.1 (flammable gas) substances and articles are generally forbidden from transportation as cargo aboard passenger-carrying aircraft, and PHMSA's proposal to prohibit the carriage of butane-powered curling irons in checked baggage is consistent with this provision. In the area of aviation safety, where the high volume of travel and the catastrophic consequences of failure lead to a very low tolerance for risk, we firmly believe the known risks of flammable gas are sufficient basis for our decision.

    We remain concerned with the flammability hazard posed by butane and other flammable gases and the ability of such gases to propagate or contribute to a fire in an inaccessible cargo compartment of a passenger-carrying aircraft. Moreover, in light of the well-established risks related to flammable gas and the long-standing prohibition of most flammable gas on passenger-carrying aircraft, PHMSA will continue to prohibit fuel cell cartridges that contain a class 2.1 flammable gas from being placed in checked baggage.

    Magdy El-Sibaie, Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07109 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 140501394-5279-02] RIN 0648-BE20 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 32 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS issues regulations to implement Amendment 32 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP), as prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). This rule removes blueline tilefish from the deep-water complex; establishes blueline tilefish commercial and recreational sector annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs); revises the deep-water complex ACLs and AMs; establishes a blueline tilefish commercial trip limit; and revises the blueline tilefish recreational bag limit. The purpose of this rule is to specify ACLs and AMs for blueline tilefish to end overfishing of the stock and maintain catch levels consistent with achieving optimum yield (OY) for the blueline tilefish resource.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective March 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic copies of Amendment 32, which includes an environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/s_atl/sg/2014/am32/index.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick DeVictor, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The blueline tilefish is a species included in the snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic, and the fishery is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

    On December 19, 2014, NMFS published a notice of availability for Amendment 32 and requested public comment (79 FR 75780). On January 22, 2015, NMFS published a proposed rule for Amendment 32 and requested public comment (80 FR 3207). The proposed rule and Amendment 32 outline the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the actions implemented by Amendment 32 and this final rule is provided below.

    A benchmark assessment for the blueline tilefish stock in the South Atlantic was conducted through the Southeast, Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process in 2013 (SEDAR 32). The assessment determined that the blueline tilefish stock is undergoing overfishing in the South Atlantic. NMFS published an emergency rule on April 17, 2014 (79 FR 21636), that implemented temporary measures to reduce overfishing of blueline tilefish while Amendment 32 was under development. Those measures were extended through a temporary rule (79 FR 61262, October 10, 2014), and are effective through April 18, 2015. The temporary measures of the emergency action include the following: Removal of blueline tilefish from the deep-water complex, specification of sector ACLs and AMs for blueline tilefish, and revision to the deep-water complex ACL to reflect the removal of blueline tilefish from the complex. Unless otherwise noted, all weights in this rule are expressed in round weight.

    Management Measures Contained in This Final Rule Removal of Blueline Tilefish From the Deep-Water Complex

    This final rule removes blueline tilefish from the deep-water complex. In 2012, the Comprehensive ACL Amendment established a deep-water complex that contained the following eight species: Blueline tilefish, yellowedge grouper, silk snapper, misty grouper, queen snapper, sand tilefish, black snapper, and blackfin snapper (77 FR 15916, March 16, 2012).

    As a result of blueline tilefish being assessed through SEDAR 32 and the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) providing an assessment-based acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendation for blueline tilefish, the Council decided to remove blueline tilefish from the deep-water complex and establish individual ACLs and AMs for the blueline tilefish stock. Amendment 29 to the FMP, which was approved by the Secretary of Commerce on February 20, 2015, revised the deep-water complex ABC, and Amendment 32 then revised the deep-water complex commercial and recreational ACLs.

    Blueline Tilefish Commercial and Recreational ACLs and AMs

    This final rule implements blueline tilefish commercial and recreational ACLs to end overfishing of the stock. The total ACLs (combined commercial and recreational ACLs, equivalent to a total ACL) for blueline tilefish are set at 35,632 lb (16,162 kg) for 2015, 53,457 lb (24,248 kg) for 2016, 71,469 lb (32,418 kg) for 2017, and 87,974 lb (39,904 kg) for 2018, and subsequent fishing years. Based on the sector allocations of 50.07 percent and 49.93 percent for the commercial and recreational sectors, the commercial ACLs are set at 17,841 lb (8,093 kg) for 2015, 26,766 lb (12,141 kg) for 2016, 35,785 lb (16,232 kg) for 2017, and 44,048 lb (19,980 kg) for 2018, and subsequent fishing years. The recreational ACLs are set at 17,791 lb (8,070 kg) for 2015, 26,691 lb (12,107 kg) for 2016, 35,685 lb (16,186 kg) for 2017, and 43,925 lb (19,924 kg) for 2018, and subsequent fishing years.

    This final rule implements commercial and recreational in-season AMs for blueline tilefish. If commercial or recreational landings for blueline tilefish reach or are projected to reach the applicable ACL, then the commercial or recreational sector, as applicable, would be closed for the remainder of the fishing year. The recreational sector would not have an in-season closure if the Regional Administrator (RA) determines, using the best scientific information available, that a closure would be unnecessary.

    Additionally, if the total ACLs are exceeded in a fishing year, then during the following fishing year the commercial and recreational sectors will not have an increase in their respective ACLs.

    This rule also implements post-season ACL overage adjustments (paybacks) for blueline tilefish. For the commercial sector, if commercial landings exceed the commercial ACL, and the total ACL is exceeded, and blueline tilefish are overfished, then during the following fishing year the commercial ACL would be reduced for that following year by the amount of the commercial ACL overage in the prior fishing year. For the recreational sector, if recreational landings for blueline tilefish exceed the applicable recreational ACL, and the total ACL is exceeded, and blueline tilefish are overfished, then the length of the recreational fishing season in the following fishing year would be reduced to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL the following fishing year. Additionally, the recreational ACL would be reduced by the amount of the recreational ACL overage from the prior fishing year. However, the recreational fishing season and recreational ACL would not be reduced if the RA determines, using the best scientific information available that no reduction is necessary.

    Additional Blueline Tilefish Management Measures

    This final rule implements a commercial trip limit of 100 lb (45 kg), gutted weight; 112 lb (51 kg), round weight, and revises the recreational bag limit for blueline tilefish. The recreational bag limit within the aggregate grouper and tilefish bag limit is set at one per vessel per day for the months of May through August. There is no retention of blueline tilefish by the recreational sector from January through April and from September through December each year.

    Deep-Water Complex Commercial and Recreational ACLs and AMs

    This final rule revises the ACLs and AMs for the deep-water complex (composed of yellowedge grouper, silk snapper, misty grouper, queen snapper, sand tilefish, black snapper, and blackfin snapper). This rule changes the deep-water complex total ACL (both sectors without blueline tilefish but with the increased catch levels for silk snapper and yellowedge grouper resulting from their increased ABCs in Amendment 29), to 170,278 lb (77,237 kg). Additionally, this rule establishes sector-specific ACLs for the deep-water complex based on the allocations for species in the deep-water complex that were established in the Comprehensive ACL Amendment (77 FR 15916, March 16, 2012). The commercial ACL for the complex is set at 131,634 lb (59,708 kg) and the recreational ACL for the complex is set at 38,644 lb (17,529 kg).

    This final rule revises the AMs for the deep-water complex including the commercial post-season AM and the recreational AMs. The commercial post-season AM is revised as follows: If commercial landings exceed the commercial ACL, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL (total ACL) is exceeded, and at least one species in the deep-water complex is overfished, then during the following fishing year the complex commercial ACL would be reduced for that following year by the amount of the complex's commercial ACL overage in the prior fishing year.

    The recreational post-season AM is revised as follows: For the recreational sector, if recreational landings for the deep-water complex exceed the applicable recreational ACL, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL is exceeded, and at least one species in the complex is overfished, then the length of the recreational fishing season in the following fishing year would be reduced to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL the following fishing year. Additionally, the recreational ACL would be reduced by the amount of the recreational ACL overage from the prior fishing year. However, the recreational fishing season and recreational ACL would not be reduced if the RA determined, using the best scientific information available, that no reduction is necessary.

    Additional Measures Contained in Amendment 32

    Amendment 32 also contains actions that are not specified in the regulations. Amendment 32 revises the definitions of management thresholds for South Atlantic blueline tilefish, including maximum sustainable yield (MSY), OY, and ABC, and establishes recreational annual catch targets (ACTs) for blueline tilefish and revises the ACTs for the deep-water complex.

    Comments and Responses

    A total of 76 comments were received on Amendment 32 and the proposed rule from fishers, a fishing association, and a Federal agency. All of the public comments received were against the proposed actions, with the exception of the comment letter from a Federal agency that had no comment. Specific comments related to the actions contained in Amendment 32 and the proposed rule, and NMFS' respective responses, are summarized and responded to below.

    Comment 1: The proposed ACLs are too low. Higher ACLs should be implemented or the ABC and ACLs should be returned to the levels in place before the emergency rule was implemented.

    Response: NMFS disagrees that the ACLs being implemented in this final rule are too low. A benchmark assessment for the blueline tilefish stock in the South Atlantic was conducted in 2013 (SEDAR 32). At its October 2013 meeting, the Council's SSC determined the 2013 stock assessment was based on the best scientific information available and considered the assessment to be appropriate for management decisions.

    The assessment determined that the blueline tilefish stock is undergoing overfishing in the South Atlantic. As required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Council must therefore implement measures to end overfishing within 2 years of notification of an overfishing status, and NMFS notified the Council of the blueline tilefish stock status on December 6, 2013. If the Council and NMFS allow the ACLs to return to levels in place prior to the emergency rule, overfishing of the blueline tilefish stock would continue.

    The ACLs in Amendment 32 are based on the stock assessment and the Council's SSC recommendation for the ABC. In Amendment 32, the Council decided to set the total (stock) ACL at 98 percent of the ABC to account for landings that occur north of the Council's area of jurisdiction. As estimated in SEDAR 32, using data through 2011, approximately 2 percent of the total blueline tilefish harvest was landed north of the North Carolina/Virginia border. NMFS, the Council, and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council are aware of recent reports of increased landings north of the Council's area of jurisdiction and are considering measures to address the issue.

    Comment 2: Beginning in 2015, North Carolina has been requiring catch reports from all for-hire vessels in North Carolina. The Council should wait one more year before taking action in Amendment 32 to allow the incorporation of the information from the North Carolina for-hire catch reports.

    Response: The Council and NMFS cannot delay the actions in Amendment 32 to end overfishing of blueline tilefish to include new information being developed in North Carolina beginning in 2015. As required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Council must implement measures to end overfishing within 2 years of notification of an overfishing status, and NMFS notified the Council of the blueline tilefish stock status on December 6, 2013. The next blueline tilefish stock assessment is scheduled to begin in 2016. That assessment will evaluate the available scientific information, including the new for-hire catch reports.

    Comment 3: The proposed blueline tilefish recreational bag limit of one per vessel per day from May to August is too low. Implement higher bag limits or retain blueline tilefish in the three fish per person per day grouper and tilefish aggregate bag limit.

    Response: NMFS disagrees that the recreational bag limit being established in this final rule is too low. To end overfishing of the blueline tilefish stock in the South Atlantic, the Council and NMFS are implementing blueline tilefish specific ACLs and AMs. One of the recreational AMs is to close the recreational season when the recreational ACL is met or projected to be met. If a higher bag limit were to be implemented, the likelihood of an ACL overage would increase as landings could exceed the recreational ACL before NMFS could close the recreational sector.

    A recreational bag limit of one blueline tilefish per vessel per day and an 8-month annual closure was determined to be most likely to end overfishing, reduce recreational harvest, and potentially reduce blueline tilefish discards if blueline tilefish are targeted less during the open season as a result of the reduced bag limit. The Council determined that the shortened summer seasonal opening could provide increased stability to recreational fishers for planning purposes as it could minimize the risk of an in-season closure and the recreational ACL being exceeded, which may require post-season AMs in the following fishing year. In addition, the Council determined that an opening during the summer months could increase safety-at-sea by allowing fishing to occur in the generally calmer summer weather compared to a January 1 season opening during the winter. The recreational bag limit and seasonal closure for the blueline tilefish recreational sector would match what is being proposed by the Council for snowy grouper through Regulatory Amendment 20 to the FMP. The Council determined that similar recreational management measures and fishing seasons would be beneficial to the fish stocks as both species are caught at similar depths and have similar high release mortality rates.

    Comment 4: The blueline tilefish commercial trip limit should be 1,000 lb (450 kg) instead of 100 lb (45 kg).

    Response: NMFS disagrees that the commercial trip limit should be 1,000 lb (450 kg). The commercial ACL implemented by this rule in 2015 is 17,841 lb (8,093 kg), round weight with a commercial trip limit of 100 lb (45 kg), gutted weight. The commercial AM implemented by this rule is to close the commercial sector when the commercial ACL is met or projected to be met. It is estimated that the combination of the commercial ACL, AM, and trip limit will create a commercial fishing season length of 156 days in 2015. The Council considered a range of trip limit alternatives, including those greater than 100 lb (45 kg). A 1,000-lb (450-kg) trip limit would be likely to greatly reduce the length of the commercial fishing season and increase the likelihood of a derby (race-to-fish) fishery occurring. The Council determined, after reviewing the analysis of the estimated season length, that a trip limit of 100 lb (45 kg), gutted weight, best meets the purpose of ending overfishing while extending the commercial fishing season and minimizing the adverse effects of a derby fishery.

    Comment 5: The commercial ACL should be divided 50/50 between the longline and hook-and-line gear components.

    Response: The Council did not consider dividing the blueline tilefish commercial ACL into separate ACLs for long-line and hook-and-line gear for the commercial sector in Amendment 32. Therefore, in Amendment 32, the commercial ACL is not further divided by gear type.

    Comment 6: Is blueline tilefish overfished and if not, is Amendment 32 legally credible? If blueline tilefish are not overfished, haven't the Council and NMFS already legally ended overfishing as required by law?

    Response: The blueline tilefish stock is not overfished but it is undergoing overfishing. Overfishing occurs whenever a stock is subjected to a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a stock to produce MSY. A stock is overfished when its size is sufficiently small that a change in management practices is required to achieve an appropriate level and rate of rebuilding.

    Based on the SEDAR 32 assessment conducted in 2013, NMFS determined that the blueline tilefish stock in the South Atlantic is experiencing overfishing and notified the Council of the stock status on December 6, 2013. At the time, NMFS also notified the Council that the stock was overfished according to the definition of the minimum stock size threshold (MSST). However, since that notification, the Council re-defined the MSST for blueline tilefish and other fish with low natural mortality rates in Regulatory Amendment 21 to the FMP, and blueline tilefish is no longer overfished (79 FR 60379, October 7, 2014). Even though the stock is not overfished, NMFS and the Council must still prepare and implement a plan amendment and regulations to end overfishing of blueline tilefish by December 6, 2015.

    Comment 7: The South Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ) should be divided into separate management zones for the Florida Keys and North Carolina. Overfishing is not occurring throughout the entire EEZ and catches should only be limited in the areas where overfishing is occurring.

    Response: The Council did not consider regional management zones for blueline tilefish in Amendment 32. The SEDAR 32 stock assessment indicated that blueline tilefish in the South Atlantic is undergoing overfishing throughout the entire South Atlantic and not just for certain areas within the South Atlantic.

    The Council has discussed dividing the South Atlantic EEZ into management areas, such as by state or region, several times in reference to various fish species. The Council may revisit these issues and explore such options in the future.

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS has determined that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic snapper-grouper and is consistent with Amendment 32, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

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

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this final rule.

    In compliance with section 604 of the RFA, NMFS prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for this final rule. The FRFA uses updated information, when available, and analyzes the anticipated economic impacts of the final actions and any significant economic impacts on small entities. The FRFA follows.

    The description of the action, why it is being considered and the legal basis for the rule are contained in the preamble of the proposed rule and in the preamble of this final rule. Section 604(a)(2) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NMFS to summarize significant issues raised by the public in response to the IRFA, a summary of the assessment of such issues, and a statement of any changes made as a result of the comments. None of the public comments received specifically concerned the IRFA; however, NMFS received several comments regarding regional differences in recreational for-hire (charter vessel or headboat) fishing businesses indirectly affected by the proposed vessel recreational bag limit and economic impacts of that limit on those businesses.

    Several comments did not support the change of the recreational bag limit for blueline tilefish. Presently, an angler can land and possess up to three blueline tilefish per day, and any limit to the number of blueline tilefish landed by a for-hire fishing vessel is only limited by the number of persons on board. This final rule establishes a recreational vessel limit of one blueline tilefish per day from May through August, regardless of how many persons are onboard the vessel, and zero for all other months. Most recreational landings of blueline tilefish have occurred in North Carolina, which indicates for-hire fishing businesses in North Carolina will experience the largest adverse indirect economic impact among the affected for-hire fishing businesses if the recreational bag limit causes demand for for-hire fishing trips to decline.

    Up to 681 commercial fishing vessels operate in the snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic and up to 282 of those vessels will be directly affected by this final rule. It is estimated that up to 282 businesses will be directly affected; however, the number of businesses is likely closer to 126, because 126 is the average number of vessels with blueline tilefish landings annually from 2009 through 2013. According to the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards, a business in the finfish fishing industry (NAICS 114111) is considered a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $20.5 million. It is estimated that all of the directly affected businesses have annual revenues less than the size standard. Consequently, up to 282, but more likely closer to 126, small commercial fishing businesses own and operate the directly affected vessels.

    Anglers who catch deep-water complex species and blueline tilefish in the EEZ will be directly affected; however, anglers are not considered small entities as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6), whether fishing from for-hire fishing, private or leased vessels. For-hire fishing vessels will be indirectly affected, and as of February 20, 2015, there are up to 1,390 for-hire fishing vessels with a Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper that will be indirectly affected. The SBA annual receipts threshold for a for-hire fishing business is $7 million (NAICS 487210). It is unknown how many small businesses own and operate the above 1,390 for-hire fishing vessels.

    The revised commercial ACL for deep-water complex species is estimated to benefit up to 156, but more likely closer to 126, vessels annually by increasing average annual dockside revenue of each vessel by $1,565, but more likely closer to $1,937 (2012 dollars). If those vessels represent from 126 to 156 small businesses, the average annual benefit would be from $1,937 to $1,565 (2012 dollars), respectively.

    The combination of the commercial ACL and in-season AM for blueline tilefish is expected to directly affect 126 vessels and will reduce average annual dockside revenue. The decrease will range from $4,574 to $5,390 (2012 dollars) per vessel. The commercial trip limit for blueline tilefish will reduce the average annual dockside revenue of 21 vessels with a 225-lb (102.1-kg) trip limit snapper-grouper permit by $1,777 each and 105 vessels with an unlimited permit by $5,990 each (2012 dollars). The decrease in average annual dockside revenue caused by the combination of the commercial ACL, AM, and trip limit for blueline tilefish will range from $5,751 to $11,380 (2012 dollars) per vessel and small business.

    It is unknown how many of the 126 small businesses referenced above land both deep-water complex species and blueline tilefish. However, if all of the 126 small businesses that land blueline tilefish also account for all of the landings of the deep-water complex species, the annual benefit from increased landings of deep-water complex species and annual cost from decreased landings of blueline tilefish would produce a combined net loss of annual dockside revenue that ranges from $3,814 to $9,443 (2012 dollars) per small business.

    No changes were made after publication of the proposed rule to reduce the adverse economic impacts of the rule. However, considered, but not adopted, alternatives included a smaller commercial ACL for the deep-water complex that would have increased the adverse economic impact and a larger commercial ACL and trip limit for blueline tilefish that would have reduced the direct adverse economic impacts of finfish fishing businesses. A larger trip limit, however, would decrease the likelihood that all of the estimated 126 vessels and small businesses, especially the smallest of the small, have blueline tilefish landings during the year. Considered, but not adopted, alternatives would have either increased or decreased the indirect adverse economic impact on for-hire fishing businesses.

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

    The AA finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of the actions in this final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) because it would be contrary to the public interest. Delaying the effectiveness of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because delaying the implementation of the measures contained within this rule is likely to allow the emergency measures to lapse and overfishing of blueline tilefish to continue. The time needed for the Council to develop, approve, and submit Amendment 32 on November 13, 2014, and the required schedules of the Federal rulemaking process did not allow for additional time to be available with respect to this rule's effectiveness and the ending of the emergency measures. Blueline tilefish are currently undergoing overfishing so any delay would undermine the purpose of this rule. If the rule is not implemented immediately, NMFS will likely be required to implement more severe harvest reductions and/or implement AMs that could have greater socio-economic impacts on South Atlantic blueline tilefish fishers. Any delay in the implementation of this final rule would allow the emergency measures to lapse and would allow harvest to continue at a level that is not consistent with National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Additionally, delaying the implementation of the measures within this rule for the deep-water complex would be contrary to the public interest as the ACLs for the species within the complex are increasing and thereby this rule increases the potential benefit to fishers with respect to the revised complex ACL.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

    Blueline tilefish, deep-water complex, Fisheries, Fishing, South Atlantic, Snapper-Grouper.

    Dated: March 23, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

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

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In § 622.183, paragraph (b)(7) is added to read as follows:
    § 622.183 Area and seasonal closures.

    (b) * * *

    (7) Blueline tilefish recreational sector closure. The recreational sector for blueline tilefish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is closed from January 1 through April 30, and September 1 through December 31, each year. During a closure, the bag and possession limit for blueline tilefish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is zero.

    3. In § 622.187, paragraphs (b)(2)(iii) and (iv) are revised and paragraph (b)(2)(v) is added to read as follows:
    § 622.187 Bag and possession limits.

    (b) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (iii) No more than one fish may be a golden tilefish;

    (iv) No more than one fish per vessel may be a blueline tilefish; and

    (v) No goliath grouper or Nassau grouper may be retained.

    4. In § 622.191, paragraph (a)(10) is added to read as follows:
    § 622.191 Commercial trip limits.

    (a) * * *

    (10) Blueline tilefish. Until the applicable ACL specified in § 622.193(z)(1)(iii) is reached or projected to be reached, 100 lb (45 kg), gutted weight; 112 lb (51 kg), round weight. See § 622.193(z)(1)(i) for the limitations regarding blueline tilefish after the commercial ACL is reached.

    5. In § 622.193: a. The suspension on paragraph (h) is lifted; b. Paragraph (h) is revised; c. Paragraph (z) is revised; and d. Paragraph (aa) is removed.

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 622.193 Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs).

    (h) Deep-water complex (including yellowedge grouper, silk snapper, misty grouper, queen snapper, sand tilefish, black snapper, and blackfin snapper)—(1) Commercial sector. (i) If commercial landings for the deep-water complex, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL of 131,634 lb (59,708 kg), round weight, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the commercial sector for the remainder of the fishing year. On and after the effective date of such a notification, all sale or purchase of deep-water complex species is prohibited and harvest or possession of these species in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the bag and possession limits. These bag and possession limits apply in the South Atlantic on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e., in state or Federal waters.

    (ii) If commercial landings exceed the ACL, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL (total ACL) specified in paragraph (h)(3) of this section, is exceeded, and at least one of the species in the deep-water complex is overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year to reduce the commercial ACL for that following year by the amount of the commercial ACL overage in the prior fishing year.

    (2) Recreational sector. (i) If recreational landings for the deep-water complex, as estimated by the SRD, are projected to reach the recreational ACL of 38,644 lb (17,529 kg), round weight, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the recreational sector for the remainder of the fishing year, unless the RA determines that no closure is necessary based on the best scientific information available. On and after the effective date of such a notification, the bag and possession limits are zero.

    (ii) If recreational landings for the deep-water complex, exceed the applicable recreational ACL, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL (total ACL) specified in paragraph (h)(3) of this section is exceeded, and at least one of the species in the deep-water complex is overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to reduce the length of the recreational fishing season in the following fishing year to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL the following fishing year. When NMFS reduces the length of the following recreational fishing season and closes the recreational sector, the following closure provisions apply: The bag and possession limits for the deep-water complex in or from the South Atlantic EEZ are zero. Additionally, the recreational ACL will be reduced by the amount of the recreational ACL overage in the prior fishing year. The fishing season and recreational ACL will not be reduced if the RA determines, using the best scientific information available that no reduction is necessary.

    (3) The combined commercial and recreational sector ACL (total ACL) is 170,278 lb (77,237 kg), round weight.

    (z) Blueline tilefish—(1) Commercial sector. (i) If commercial landings for blueline tilefish, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the applicable ACL in paragraph (z)(1)(iii) of this section, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the commercial sector for the remainder of the fishing year. On and after the effective date of such a notification, all sale or purchase of blueline tilefish is prohibited and harvest or possession of this species in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the bag and possession limits. These bag and possession limits apply in the South Atlantic on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e., in state or Federal waters.

    (ii) If commercial landings exceed the ACL, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL (total ACL) specified in paragraph (z)(3) of this section is exceeded, and blueline tilefish are overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year to reduce the commercial ACL for that following year by the amount of the commercial ACL overage in the prior fishing year.

    (iii) The applicable commercial ACLs, in round weight, are 17,841 lb (8,093 kg) for 2015, 26,766 lb (12,141 kg) for 2016, 35,785 lb (16,232 kg) for 2017, and 44,048 lb (19,980 kg) for 2018 and subsequent fishing years. The commercial ACL will not increase automatically in a subsequent fishing year if landings exceed or are projected to exceed the total ACL in the prior fishing year, as specified in paragraph (z)(3) of this section.

    (2) Recreational sector. (i) If recreational landings for blueline tilefish, as estimated by the SRD, are projected to reach the applicable ACL in paragraph (z)(2)(iii) of this section, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the recreational sector for the remainder of the fishing year, unless the RA determines that no closure is necessary based on the best scientific information available. On and after the effective date of such a notification, the bag and possession limits are zero.

    (ii) If recreational landings for blueline tilefish, exceed the applicable recreational ACL, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL (total ACL) specified in paragraph (z)(3) of this section, is exceeded, and blueline tilefish is overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to reduce the length of the recreational fishing season in the following fishing year to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL the following fishing year. When NMFS reduces the length of the following recreational fishing season and closes the recreational sector, the following closure provisions apply: The bag and possession limits for blueline tilefish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ are zero. Additionally, the recreational ACL will be reduced by the amount of the recreational ACL overage in the prior fishing year. The fishing season and recreational ACL will not be reduced if the RA determines, using the best scientific information available that no reduction is necessary.

    (iii) The applicable recreational ACLs, in round weight, are 17,791 lb (8,070 kg) for 2015, 26,691 lb (12,107 kg) for 2016, 35,685 lb (16,186 kg) for 2017, and 43,925 lb (19,924 kg) for 2018 and subsequent fishing years. The recreational ACL will not increase automatically in a subsequent fishing year if landings exceed or are projected to exceed the total ACL in the prior fishing year, as specified in paragraph (z)(3) of this section.

    (3) Without regard to overfished status, if the combined commercial and recreational ACL (total ACL), as estimated by the SRD, is exceeded in a fishing year, then during the following fishing year, an automatic increase will not be applied to the commercial and recreational ACLs. The RA will evaluate the landings data, using the best scientific information available, to determine whether or not an increase in the commercial and recreational ACLs will be applied. The applicable combined commercial and recreational sector ACLs (total ACLs), in round weight are 35,632 lb (16,162 kg) for 2015, 53,457 lb (24,248 kg) for 2016, 71,469 lb (32,418 kg) for 2017, and 87,974 lb (39,904 kg) for 2018 and subsequent fishing years.

    [FR Doc. 2015-06988 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 60 Monday, March 30, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 932 [Doc. No. AMS-FV-14-0105; FV15-932-1 PR] Olives Grown in California; Increased Assessment Rate AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the California Olive Committee (committee) to increase the assessment rate established for the 2015 and subsequent fiscal years from $15.21 to $26.00 per assessable ton of olives handled. The committee locally administers the marketing order and is comprised of producers and handlers of olives grown in California. Assessments upon olive handlers are used by the committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal year begins January 1 and ends December 31. The assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by April 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Terry Vawter, Senior Marketing Specialist or Martin Engeler, Regional Manager, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 148 and Order No. 932, both as amended (7 CFR part 932), regulating the handling of olives grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

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

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

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

    This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate established for the committee for the 2015 and subsequent fiscal years from $15.21 to $26.00 per ton of assessable olives.

    The California olive marketing order provides authority for the committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the committee are producers and handlers of California olives. They are familiar with the committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate.

    The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

    For the 2014 and subsequent fiscal years, the committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal year to fiscal year unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the committee or other information available to USDA.

    The committee met on December 9, 2014, and unanimously recommended 2015 fiscal year expenditures of $1,374,072, and an assessment rate of $26.00 per ton of assessable olives. Olives are an alternate-bearing crop: a large crop followed by a smaller crop. Olive growers and handlers are accustomed to wide swings in crop yields, which necessarily result in fluctuations in the assessment rate from year to year. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $1,262,460. The assessment rate of $26.00 is $10.79 higher than the rate currently in effect.

    The committee recommended the higher assessment rate because of a substantial decrease in assessable olive tonnage for the 2014 crop year. The olive tonnage available for the 2014 crop year was less than 40,000 tons, which compares to the 91,000 tons reported for the 2013 crop year, as reported by the California Agricultural Statistics Service (CASS).

    The reduced crop is due to olives being an alternate-bearing fruit. The 2014 crop was what is called the “off” crop: The smaller of the two bearing-year crops.

    In addition to the funds from handler assessments, the committee also plans to use available reserve funds to help meet its 2015 fiscal year expenses.

    The major expenditures recommended by the committee for the 2015 fiscal year include $259,231 for research, $450,000 for marketing activities, $122,000 for inspection equipment and electronic reporting development, and $393,500 for administration. The major expenditures for the 2014 fiscal year included $312,560 for research, $565,600 for marketing activities, $37,800 for inspection equipment and electronic reporting development, and $346,500 for administration.

    Overall 2015 expenditures include an increase in inspection equipment and electronic reporting development expenses due to the need to purchase, test, install, and link new sizers to the electronic reporting system. Additionally, the research budget contains a contingency of $41,000 for new opportunities that may arise during the fiscal year, and the administrative budget includes a $31,000 contingency for unforeseen issues.

    The assessment rate recommended by the committee resulted from consideration of anticipated fiscal year expenses, actual olive tonnage received by handlers during the 2014 crop year, and additional pertinent information. As reported by CASS, actual assessable tonnage for the 2014 crop year is under 40,000 tons or less than half of the 91,000 assessable tons in the 2013 crop year, which is a result of the alternate-bearing characteristics of olives.

    Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the committee's authorized reserve would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve would be kept within the maximum permitted by the order of approximately one fiscal year's expenses (§ 932.40).

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

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

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

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

    There are approximately 1000 producers of olives in the production area and 2 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. The Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) defines small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000 (13 CFR 121.210).

    Based upon information from the industry and CASS, the average grower price for the 2014 crop year was approximately $1,027 per ton, and total assessable volume was less than 40,000 tons. Based on production, producer prices, and the total number of California olive producers, the average annual producer revenue is less than $750,000. Thus, the majority of olive producers may be classified as small entities. Both of the handlers may be classified as large entities.

    This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate established for the committee and collected from handlers for the 2015 and subsequent fiscal years from $15.21 to $26.00 per ton of assessable olives. The committee unanimously recommended 2015 fiscal year expenditures of $1,374,072, and an assessment rate of $26.00 per ton. The higher assessment rate is necessary because assessable olive receipts for the 2014 crop year were reported by CASS to be less than 40,000 tons, compared to 91,000 tons for the 2013 crop year.

    Income derived from the $26.00 per ton assessment rate, along with funds from the authorized reserve and interest income, should be adequate to meet this fiscal year's expenses.

    The major expenditures recommended by the committee for the 2015 fiscal year include $259,231 for research, $450,000 for marketing activities, $122,000 for inspection equipment development, and $393,500 for administration. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2014 were $312,560 for research, $565,600 for marketing activities, $37,800 for inspection equipment and electronic reporting development, and $346,500 for administration.

    The committee deliberated many of the expenses, weighing the relative value of various programs or projects, and decreased their costs for research and marketing, while increasing their costs for inspection equipment and electronic reporting development, as well as their administrative expenses.

    Prior to arriving at this budget, the committee considered information from various sources such as the committee's Executive, Marketing, Inspection, and Research Subcommittees. Alternate expenditure levels were discussed by these groups based upon the relative value of various projects to the olive industry and the reduced olive production. The assessment rate of $26.00 per ton of assessable olives was derived by considering anticipated expenses, the volume of assessable olives, and additional pertinent factors.

    A review of preliminary information indicates that average grower prices for 2014 crop olives was approximately $1,027 per ton. Therefore, utilizing the proposed assessment rate of $26.00 per ton, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2015 fiscal year as a percentage of total grower revenue would be approximately 2.5 percent.

    This action would increase the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs would be offset by the benefits derived from the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the California's olive industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in committee deliberations on all issues. Like all committee meetings, the December 9, 2014, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were encouraged to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

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

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

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

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

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

    A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. Thirty days is deemed appropriate because: (1) The 2015 fiscal year began on January 1, 2015, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal year apply to all assessable olives handled during such fiscal year; (2) the committee needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses, which are incurred on a continuous basis; and (3) both regulated handlers were present at the December 9, 2014, meeting, and are aware of this action, which was unanimously recommended by the committee at a public meeting, and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 932

    Olives, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 932 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 932—OLIVES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 932 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 601-674.

    2. Section 932.230 is revised to read as follows:
    § 932.230 Assessment rate.

    On and after January 1, 2015, an assessment rate of $26.00 per ton is established for California olives.

    Dated: March 24, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07116 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Parts 1 and 2 [Docket No. APHIS-2014-0050] Petition To Define Alternatives to Procedures That May Cause Pain or Distress and To Establish Standards Regarding Consideration of These Alternatives AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of petition.

    SUMMARY:

    We are notifying the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has received a petition requesting that we amend the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulations to define the term alternatives, clarify the existing definition of painful procedure, and establish standards governing the consideration of such alternatives at research facilities that are registered under the AWA regulations. We are making this petition available to the public and soliciting comments regarding the petition and any issues raised by the petition that we should take into account as we consider this petition.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0050.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2014-0050, 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-2014-0050 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:

    Dr. Carol Clarke, Research Program Manager, USDA, APHIS, Animal Care, 4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737-1234; (301) 851-3751.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Animal Welfare Act (AWA, 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate standards and other requirements governing research facilities. The Secretary has delegated the responsibility for enforcing the AWA to the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Within APHIS, the responsibility for administering the AWA has been delegated to the Deputy Administrator for Animal Care.

    Regulations and standards promulgated under the AWA are contained in Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 1, 2, and 3 (referred to collectively below as the AWA regulations). Part 1 contains definitions of terms used within parts 2 and 3. Part 2 contains licensing and registration regulations, regulations specific to research facilities, and regulations governing veterinary care, animal identification, recordkeeping, access for inspection, confiscation of animals, and handling, among other requirements. Within part 2, subpart C contains the regulations specific to research facilities.

    Among other requirements, research facilities, other than Federal research facilities, must register with APHIS and appoint an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). The IACUC, which must be composed of a chairperson and at least two other members, is required to perform certain functions in order to ensure the facility's compliance with the AWA regulations.

    As one of these functions, the IACUC must review proposed activities involving animals that are performed at the facility, as well as significant changes in ongoing activities, in order to determine that the principle investigator has considered alternatives to procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress to the animals, and has provided a written narrative description of the methods and sources used to determine that alternatives were not available.

    On October 30, 2013, APHIS received a petition from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (referred to below as PCRM) requesting that we initiate rulemaking to amend the AWA regulations. Specifically, PCRM asks that we amend part 1 to add a definition of the term alternatives in order to delineate what a primary investigator is required to consider in lieu of a procedure that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress to the animals. The petition also asks that we amend the existing definition of painful procedure in order to codify a long-standing APHIS policy that a procedure should be considered to be painful if it may cause more than momentary or slight pain of distress to the animals, even if this pain is subsequently relieved through anesthesia. Finally, the petition asks that we amend part 2 to specify what must occur as part of a consideration of alternatives.

    The petition states that the intent of the AWA is to authorize research facilities to undertake procedures likely to produce pain or distress in animals only if no alternatives exist to these procedures, and that the AWA regulations support this interpretation of the AWA itself. The petition suggests, however, that because of ambiguities in the AWA regulations, research facilities have sometimes construed them to mean that cursory deliberation regarding alternatives suffices to meet this regulatory and statutory requirement to consider alternatives. The petition states that, by amending the AWA regulations in the manner that PCRM suggests, we would remove these ambiguities and facilitate regulatory compliance.

    We are making this petition available to the public and soliciting comments to help determine what action, if any, to take in response to this request. The petition and any comments submitted are available for review as indicated under ADDRESSES above. We welcome all comments on the issues outlined in the petition. In particular, we invite responses to the following questions:

    1. Should APHIS establish regulatory standards for consideration of alternatives to procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress to animals?

    2. What constitutes an alternative to a procedure that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress? If we amend the AWA regulations to define the term alternative, what definition should we use?

    3. What constitutes a thorough consideration of alternatives? Does this differ depending on the nature of the research conducted? If so, how?

    4. Who should make a determination regarding the thoroughness of a primary investigator's consideration of alternatives: The IACUC for a facility, APHIS, or both parties?

    5. If the IACUC and APHIS should jointly make a determination, which responsibilities should fall to APHIS and which to the IACUC in terms of evaluating thoroughness?

    6. What documentation should the primary investigator provide to demonstrate that he or she has done a thorough consideration of alternatives?

    We encourage the submission of scientific data, studies, or research to support your comments and position. We also invite data on the costs and benefits associated with any recommendations. We will consider all comments and recommendations we receive.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 2131-2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 24th day of March 2015. Jere L. Dick, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07221 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Parts 51, 71, 75, 78, 85, and 86 [Docket No. APHIS-2014-0018] RIN 0579-AE02 Livestock Marketing Facilities AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We are reopening the comment period for our proposed rule that would amend the regulations governing approval of facilities that receive livestock moved in interstate commerce, as well as the conditions under which livestock may move to such facilities without official identification or prior issuance of an interstate certificate of veterinary inspection or alternative documentation. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the proposed rule published on January 2, 2015 (80 FR 6 through 13) is reopened. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0018.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2014-0018, 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-2014-0018 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:

    Mr. Neil Hammerschmidt, Program Manager, Animal Disease Traceability, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 200, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-3539.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On January 2, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 6 through 13, Docket No. APHIS-2014-0018) a proposal to amend the regulations in 9 CFR subchapters B and C.

    We proposed to amend the regulations in part 51 of subchapter B and several parts of subchapter C to, among other things, replace references to “approved livestock facilities,” “approved stockyards” and “specifically approved stockyards” with the term “approved livestock marketing facilities.”

    We proposed to amend the regulations in § 71.20, which provide the conditions under which the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture may approve a livestock facility to receive livestock that are moved interstate under conditions that are afforded only to such approved facilities. The current regulations in that section require the person legally responsible for the day-to-day operations of the facility to execute an agreement with APHIS regarding the manner in which the facility will operate, if approved. The provisions of the agreement are currently set forth in the regulations.

    We proposed to remove the terms of the agreement from the regulations, and place them instead in a document titled “The Approved Livestock Marketing Facility Agreement,” which we would maintain on the Internet. We also proposed to update the terms of the agreement and to make other amendments to § 71.20 that would update and clarify the section's content.

    We proposed to revise § 86.4 in order to clarify the conditions under which cattle and bison may be moved interstate to an approved livestock marketing facility without official identification. We also proposed to revise § 86.5 in order to clarify the conditions under which cattle or bison may be moved interstate to an approved livestock facility without an accompanying interstate certificate of veterinary inspection or owner-shipper statement.

    Comments on the proposed rule were required to be received on or before March 3, 2015. We are reopening the comment period on Docket No. APHIS-2014-0018. The comment period will now close on April 15, 2015. We will also accept all comments received between March 4, 2015 (the day after the close of the original comment period) and the date of this notice. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 24th day of March 2015. Jere L. Dick, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07217 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 11 CFR Part 111 [Notice 2015-05] Rulemaking Petition: Administrative Fines Program and Commission Forms AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    ACTION:

    Rulemaking Petition: Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    On January 23, 2015, the Federal Election Commission received a Petition for Rulemaking asking the Commission to expand its Administrative Fines Program and to revise and update several Commission forms and their instructions. The Commission seeks comments on this petition.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before May 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    All comments must be in writing. Commenters are encouraged to submit comments electronically via the Commission's Web site at http://www.fec.gov/fosers, reference REG 2015-01, or by email to [email protected] Alternatively, commenters may submit comments in paper form, addressed to the Federal Election Commission, Attn.: Robert M. Knop, Assistant General Counsel, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463.

    Each commenter must provide, at a minimum, his or her first name, last name, city, state, and zip code. All properly submitted comments, including attachments, will become part of the public record, and the Commission will make comments available for public viewing on the Commission's Web site and in the Commission's Public Records room. Accordingly, commenters should not provide in their comments any information that they do not wish to make public, such as a home street address, personal email address, date of birth, phone number, social security number, or driver's license number, or any information that is restricted from disclosure, such as trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Robert M. Knop, Assistant General Counsel, Mr. Neven F. Stipanovic, Attorney, or Ms. Holly Ratliff, Office of General Counsel, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694-1650 or (800) 424-9530.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On January 23, 2015, the Federal Election Commission received a Petition for Rulemaking from seven attorneys 1 (collectively “petitioners”) regarding the Commission's Administrative Fines Program (“AFP”) and several of the Commission's forms and their accompanying instructions. Under the AFP, the Commission assesses civil monetary penalties for late filing and failure to file certain reports as required by 52 U.S.C. 30104(a) (formerly 2 U.S.C. 434(a)) (requiring political committee treasurers to report receipts and disbursements within certain time periods). 11 CFR 111.30; see also 52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(4)(C) (formerly 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(4)(C)). If the Commission determines that such a violation has occurred, it may assess a civil monetary penalty according to the AFP penalty schedules at 11 CFR 111.43-.44.

    1 Messrs. Robert F. Bauer, Allen Dickerson, Benjamin L. Ginsberg, Donald F. McGahn II, Laurence E. Gold, Robert D. Lenhard, and Bradley A. Smith.

    In December 2013, Congress authorized the Commission to expand the scope of the AFP to encompass reporting violations for reports filed under 52 U.S.C. 30104(c) (formerly 2 U.S.C. 434(c)) (certain independent expenditure reports), 52 U.S.C. 30104(e) (formerly 2 U.S.C. 434(e)) (certain federal election activity reports), 52 U.S.C. 30104(f) (formerly 2 U.S.C. 434(f)) (electioneering communications reports), 52 U.S.C. 30104(g) (formerly 2 U.S.C. 434(g)) (24- and 48-hour independent expenditure reports), 52 U.S.C. 30104(i) (formerly 2 U.S.C. 434(i)) (bundled contribution reports), and 52 U.S.C. 30105 (formerly 2 U.S.C. 437) (certain convention reports). See Public Law 113-72, 127 Stat. 1210 (2013). The petitioners ask the Commission to conduct a rulemaking to expand the scope of the AFP to these additional categories of reporting violations, using an approach that considers the criteria in the penalty schedule found at 11 CFR 111.43 (election sensitivity, level of activity, number of days late, and number of previous violations) and similar factors but eschews a strict formulaic penalty.

    The petitioners also ask the Commission to revise several of its forms and their instructions. The proposals are divided into five categories, wherein the petitioners ask the Commission to: (1) Eliminate the need for “sophisticated accounting techniques” by “add[ing] a single, streamlined page to Form 3X for reporting all in-kind contributions” and “clarify[ing] that committees need only engage in best efforts to reasonably ascertain the value of expenditures subject to 24- and 48-hour reports”; (2) revise the forms to “reflect the existence of independent-expenditure only committees”; (3) revise the forms to “reflect the existence of Carey funds”; (4) revise the forms to “recognize that corporations and labor organizations may make contributions to IE PACs”; and (5) revise the forms to “confine Form 3X to nonconnected committees and separate segregated funds, create a separate reporting form for political party committees, and thoroughly redesign Form 3X.”

    The Commission seeks comments on the petition. The public may inspect the Petition for Rulemaking on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fec.gov/fosers, or in the Commission's Public Records Office, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463, Monday through Friday, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Interested persons may also obtain a copy of the petition by dialing the Commission's Faxline service at (202) 501-3413 and following its instructions. Request document #277.

    The Commission will not consider the petition's merits until after the comment period closes. If the Commission decides that the petition has merit, it may begin a rulemaking proceeding. The Commission will announce any action that it takes in the Federal Register.

    On behalf of the Commission.

    Dated: March 24, 2015. Ann M. Ravel, Chair, Federal Election Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07176 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 11 CFR Part 115 [Notice 2015-06] Rulemaking Petition: Federal Contractors AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    ACTION:

    Rulemaking Petition: Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    On November 18, 2014, the Federal Election Commission received a Petition for Rulemaking from Public Citizen. The petitioner asks the Commission to amend its regulations regarding federal contractors to include certain factors for determining whether entities of the same corporate family are distinct business entities for purposes of the prohibition on contributions by federal contractors. The Commission seeks comments on this petition.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before May 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    All comments must be in writing. Commenters are encouraged to submit comments electronically via the Commission's Web site at http://www.fec.gov/fosers, reference REG 2014-09, or by email to [email protected]. Alternatively, commenters may submit comments in paper form, addressed to the Federal Election Commission, Attn.: Amy L. Rothstein, Assistant General Counsel, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463.

    Each commenter must provide, at a minimum, his or her first name, last name, city, state, and zip code. All properly submitted comments, including attachments, will become part of the public record, and the Commission will make comments available for public viewing on the Commission's Web site and in the Commission's Public Records room. Accordingly, commenters should not provide in their comments any information that they do not wish to make public, such as a home street address, personal email address, date of birth, phone number, social security number, or driver's license number, or any information that is restricted from disclosure, such as trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mrs. Amy L. Rothstein, Assistant General Counsel, or Mr. Neven F. Stipanovic, Attorney, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694-1650 or (800) 424-9530.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On November 18, 2014, the Commission received a Petition for Rulemaking from Public Citizen regarding part 115 of the Commission's regulations. Part 115 prohibits federal contractors from making contributions or expenditures to any political party, political committee, or federal candidate, or to any person for any political purpose or use. 11 CFR 115.2(a); see also 52 U.S.C. 30119(a)(1) (formerly 2 U.S.C. 441c(a)(1)). Part 115 further prohibits any person from knowingly soliciting a contribution from any federal contractor. 11 CFR 115.2(c); see also 52 U.S.C. 30119(a)(2) (formerly 2 U.S.C. 441c(a)(2)). The petitioner asks the Commission to amend 11 CFR part 115 to include certain factors for determining whether entities of the same corporate family are distinct business entities for purposes of these prohibitions. The Commission seeks comments on the petition.

    The public may inspect the Petition for Rulemaking on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fec.gov/fosers, or in the Commission's Public Records Office, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463, Monday through Friday, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Interested persons may also obtain a copy of the petition by dialing the Commission's Faxline service at (202) 501-3413 and following its instructions. Request document #276.

    The Commission will not consider the petition's merits until after the comment period closes. If the Commission decides that the petition has merit, it may begin a rulemaking proceeding. The Commission will announce any action that it takes in the Federal Register.

    On behalf of the Commission,

    Dated: March 24, 2015. Ann M. Ravel, Chair, Federal Election Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07177 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Part 701 RIN 3133-AE39 Federal Credit Union Ownership of Fixed Assets AGENCY:

    National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The NCUA Board (Board) is issuing for public comment this proposed rule (2015 proposal) to amend its regulation governing federal credit union (FCU) ownership of fixed assets. To provide regulatory relief to FCUs, the 2015 proposal eliminates a provision in the current fixed assets rule that established a five percent aggregate limit on investments in fixed assets for FCUs with $1,000,000 or more in assets. It also eliminates the provisions in the current fixed assets rule relating to waivers from the aggregate limit. Further, instead of applying the prescriptive aggregate limit provided by regulation in the current fixed assets rule, the Board proposes to oversee FCU ownership of fixed assets through the supervisory process and guidance. The 2015 proposal also makes conforming amendments to the scope and definitions sections of the current fixed assets rule to reflect this proposed approach, and it amends the title of § 701.36 to more accurately reflect this amended scope and applicability.

    In addition, the 2015 proposal simplifies the fixed assets rule's partial occupancy requirements for FCU premises acquired for future expansion by establishing a single six-year time period for partial occupancy of such premises and by removing the 30-month requirement for partial occupancy waiver requests. The Board notes that, in July 2014, it issued a proposal regarding the fixed assets rule that addressed, among other things, the partial occupancy provisions of the fixed assets rule (July 2014 proposal), but NCUA did not finalize that proposal. For reasons discussed below, the 2015 proposal incorporates similar partial occupancy proposed amendments from the July 2014 proposal, with one modification to the time period for partial occupancy.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):

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

    NCUA Web site: http://www.ncua.gov/RegulationsOpinionsLaws/proposed_regs/proposed_regs.html. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: Address to [email protected] Include “[Your name] Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Part 701, FCU Ownership of Fixed Assets” in the email subject line.

    Fax: (703) 518-6319. Use the subject line described above for email.

    Mail: Address to Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mail address.

    Public Inspection: You may view all public comments on NCUA's Web site at http://www.ncua.gov/Legal/Regs/Pages/PropRegs.aspx as submitted, except for those we cannot post for technical reasons. NCUA will not edit or remove any identifying or contact information from the public comments submitted. You may inspect paper copies of comments in NCUA's law library at 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, by appointment weekdays between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. To make an appointment, call (703) 518-6546 or send an email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Yu, Senior Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, at the above address or telephone (703) 518-6540, or Jacob McCall, Program Officer, Office of Examination and Insurance, at the above address or telephone (703) 518-6360.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. 2013 Rule B. July 2014 Proposal C. Public Comments on the July 2014 Proposal II. Summary of the 2015 Proposal III. Request for Public Comment IV. Regulatory Procedures I. Background

    The Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act) authorizes an FCU to purchase, hold, and dispose of property necessary or incidental to its operations.1 NCUA's fixed assets rule interprets and implements this provision of the FCU Act.2 NCUA's current fixed assets rule: (1) Limits FCU investments in fixed assets; (2) establishes occupancy, planning, and disposal requirements for acquired and abandoned premises; and (3) prohibits certain transactions.3 Under the current rule, fixed assets are defined as premises, furniture, fixtures, and equipment, including any office, branch office, suboffice, service center, parking lot, facility, real estate where a credit union transacts or will transact business, office furnishings, office machines, computer hardware and software, automated terminals, and heating and cooling equipment.4

    1 12 U.S.C. 1757(4).

    2 12 CFR 701.36.

    3 Id.

    4 12 CFR 701.36(c).

    A. 2013 Rule

    The Board has a policy of continually reviewing NCUA's regulations to update, clarify and simplify existing regulations and eliminate redundant and unnecessary provisions. To carry out this policy, NCUA identifies one-third of its existing regulations for review each year and provides notice of this review so the public may comment. In 2012, NCUA reviewed its fixed assets rule as part of this process. As a result of that review, in March 2013, the Board issued proposed amendments to the fixed assets rule to make it easier for FCUs to understand it.5 The proposed amendments did not make any substantive changes to the regulatory requirements. Rather, they only clarified the rule and improved its overall organization, structure, and readability.

    5 78 FR 17136 (Mar. 20, 2013).

    In response to the Board's request for public comment on the March 2013 proposal, several commenters offered suggestions for substantive changes to the fixed assets rule, such as increasing or eliminating the aggregate limit on fixed assets, changing the current waiver process, and extending the time frames for occupying premises acquired for future expansion. These comments, however, were beyond the scope of the March 2013 proposal, which only reorganized and clarified the rule. Accordingly, in September 2013, the Board adopted the March 2013 proposal as final without change except for one minor modification.6 In finalizing that rule, however, the Board indicated it would take the commenters' substantive suggestions into consideration if it were to make subsequent amendments to NCUA's fixed assets rule.

    6 78 FR 57250 (Sept. 18, 2013).

    B. July 2014 Proposal

    In July 2014, the Board issued a proposed rule to provide regulatory relief to FCUs and to allow FCUs greater autonomy in managing their fixed assets.7 These amendments reflected some of the public comments received on the March 2013 proposal. Specifically, in the July 2014 proposal, the Board proposed to allow an FCU to exceed the five percent aggregate limit,8 without the need for a waiver, provided that the FCU implemented a fixed asset management (FAM) program that demonstrated appropriate pre-acquisition analysis to ensure the FCU could afford any impact on earnings and net worth levels resulting from the purchase of fixed assets. Under the July 2014 proposal, an FCU's FAM program would have been subject to supervisory scrutiny and would have had to provide for close ongoing oversight of fixed assets levels and their effect on the FCU's financial performance. It also would have had to include a written policy that set an FCU board-established limit on the aggregate amount of the FCU's fixed assets. In the July 2014 proposal, the Board also proposed to simplify the partial occupancy requirement for premises acquired for future expansion by establishing a single five-year time period for partial occupancy of any premises acquired for future expansion, including improved and unimproved property, and by removing the current fixed assets rule's 30-month time limit for submitting a partial occupancy waiver request.

    7 79 FR 46727 (Aug. 11, 2014).

    8 The five percent aggregate limit on fixed assets is measured in comparison to the FCU's shares and retained earnings.

    C. Public Comments on the July 2014 Proposal

    The public comment period for the July 2014 proposal ended on October 10, 2014. NCUA received thirty-six comments on the proposal: Two from credit union trade associations; one from a bank trade association; sixteen from state credit union leagues; thirteen from FCUs; three from federally insured, state-chartered credit unions; and one from an individual. While commenters generally supported the Board's efforts to provide regulatory relief from the requirements concerning FCU fixed assets, most commenters advocated more relief or suggested alternative approaches to achieving that objective.

    One commenter fully supported all aspects of the July 2014 proposal. Two commenters opposed it, and another commenter stated that it represented only a marginal improvement over the current rule.

    1. Removal of the Waiver Requirement To Exceed the Five Percent Aggregate Limit

    Under the current rule, if an FCU has $1,000,000 or more in assets, the aggregate of all its investments in fixed assets must not exceed five percent of its shares and retained earnings, unless it obtains a waiver from NCUA.9 In the July 2014 proposal, the Board proposed to amend this requirement to allow an FCU to exceed the five percent aggregate limit, without a waiver, provided the FCU implemented a FAM program to manage and monitor the FCU's fixed assets.

    9 12 CFR 701.36(c).

    Fifteen commenters supported removing the waiver requirement and also supported the requirement to adopt a FAM program for those FCUs that exceed the five percent limit. Five commenters, however, supported removing the waiver requirement but disagreed with the FAM program requirement. One commenter did not support the removal of the waiver requirement.

    a. Five Percent Aggregate Limit

    In the July 2014 proposal, the Board did not propose to change the current rule's five percent aggregate limit on an FCU's investment in fixed assets, but many commenters nonetheless advocated its repeal. At least ten commenters suggested that the July 2014 proposal did not provide sufficient regulatory relief and that the five percent aggregate limit should be eliminated. These commenters noted that the aggregate limit is not statutorily mandated by the FCU Act and, thus, FCUs should be allowed to independently manage their own fixed assets by setting their own credit union board-approved limits. Four commenters argued further that FCUs should be permitted to set their own fixed assets limits without the additional requirement of adopting a burdensome FAM program.

    One commenter, however, urged NCUA not to eliminate the aggregate limit because allowing unlimited amounts of investments in fixed assets could pose a significant safety and soundness risk. The same commenter observed that the material loss reviews of several failed FCUs noted the contributory role that excessive fixed assets played in those credit union failures.

    Other commenters were not opposed to an aggregate limit, but argued it should be increased. For example, one commenter advocated a fifteen percent aggregate limit. Another suggested that the aggregate limit should be raised to at least twenty percent.

    b. Exclusions From the Fixed Assets Ratio

    A number of commenters recommended that certain investments should be excluded from the current rule's fixed assets ratio calculation. Two commenters stated generally that the fixed assets calculation should reflect the greater emphasis placed on technology in the current marketplace and better account for the need to replace obsolete technology and equipment. At least four commenters stated that investments in information technology, including computer hardware and software, should be excluded from the calculation. One commenter indicated that fixed assets should be comprised of land and buildings only. Another commenter stated generally that there should be some type of safe harbor or exclusion to allow for the purchase of necessary equipment.

    2. Fixed Assets Management Program

    Fifteen commenters supported the proposed requirement for an FCU to adopt a FAM program before choosing to exceed the five percent aggregate limit. However, most commenters that generally supported this aspect of the proposal also expressed concerns about certain aspects of the requirement.

    Approximately one quarter of the commenters opposed the FAM program requirement altogether. Of those, several commenters argued that it is unnecessary or overly burdensome, and it would impose additional burdens that FCUs are not already subject to under the current rule. For example, four commenters noted that the requirement for annual FCU board review is an additional step that is not present under the current waiver process. One commenter argued that the FAM program requirement would create unnecessary complications to the acquisition of fixed assets over the five percent limit, and the requirement could serve as a deterrent to the acquisition of fixed assets. One commenter argued that the proposal simply shuffles regulatory burden, rather than providing meaningful regulatory relief. Another commenter also argued that the level of analysis that must be included in an FCU's FAM program is beyond what is required under the current waiver process and, thus, the proposal would not reduce regulatory burden. Three commenters proffered a similar argument that the additional requirements imposed after assets are acquired would increase FCUs' compliance responsibilities and costs, negating any flexibility gained under the proposal.

    a. Minor Acquisitions

    Four commenters requested changes to proposed § 701.36(c)(2), which would require an FCU to seek FCU board approval to make investments in fixed assets exceeding the aggregate limit “except for the minor acquisitions of equipment in the normal course of business.” A number of commenters suggested this language should be expanded to include minor acquisitions of furniture and fixtures, in addition to equipment. One commenter suggested “minor acquisitions” should specifically include purchases of desktop technologies, such as computer monitors, printers, faxes, scanners, copiers, and telephones, upgrades or renewals to existing desktop software, and ATMs. Another commenter suggested that “minor acquisitions” should be defined as anything under .005 percent of shares and retained earnings.

    b. Future Marketability

    At least seven commenters expressed concern with the “future marketability” element of the FAM program. Specifically, proposed § 701.36(2)(iii) provided that FCU board oversight of an investment in real property that would cause the FCU to exceed the five percent aggregate limit must reflect the board's consideration of the “future marketability” of the premises. Commenters noted that this requirement could, in some circumstances, be contrary to the best interest of members, particularly low-income members and members in rural or underserved areas. They argued that the decision to purchase a branch or office location should be based on member service needs, not future marketability. At least four commenters requested that the future marketability provision be eliminated because strategic considerations beyond marketability factor into a decision to acquire fixed assets.

    c. Internal Controls

    Proposed § 701.36(c)(3) would have required an FCU's FAM program to establish ongoing internal controls to monitor and measure the FCU's investments in fixed assets. Two commenters disagreed with the proposed internal controls requirement, noting that the current fixed assets rule does not have a specific internal controls requirement. These commenters argued that internal controls to monitor fixed assets investments should not be prescribed by specific regulatory requirements, but rather such internal controls should be determined by credit union management and subject to examiner review during the routine examination process.

    d. Appeals

    Eight commenters suggested that any final rule should include an appeals process to allow, for example, an FCU to appeal if an examiner contests an FCU's fixed asset investment or disapproves an FCU's FAM program.

    e. Conclusion Regarding Aggregate Limit and FAM Program

    After careful consideration of the public comments relating to the fixed assets aggregate limit, the Board has determined that additional regulatory relief beyond what was provided in the July 2014 proposal is warranted. Therefore, the Board is not adopting the July 2014 proposed amendments relating to the five percent aggregate limit on fixed assets, including any FAM program requirements. In particular, upon further review, the Board has concluded that oversight of the purchase of FCU investments in fixed assets can be effectively achieved through supervisory guidance and the examination process, rather than through prescriptive regulatory limitations. Accordingly, the Board is issuing this 2015 proposal to remove altogether the five percent aggregate limit on fixed assets, as discussed in further detail below.

    D. Partial Occupancy

    The July 2014 proposal also would have simplified the partial occupancy requirement for premises acquired for future expansion. Virtually all commenters that provided feedback on the proposed amendments to the partial occupancy requirement supported the overall concept of streamlining or improving this aspect of the fixed assets rule. However, as discussed more fully below, most commenters requested additional relief beyond that proposed.

    1. Time Period for Partial Occupancy

    Under the current rule, if an FCU acquires premises for future expansion and does not fully occupy them within one year, it must have an FCU board resolution in place by the end of that year with definitive plans for full occupation. In addition, the rule requires an FCU to partially occupy the premises within a reasonable period, but no later than three years after the date of acquisition, or six years if the premises are unimproved land or unimproved real property. In the July 2014 proposal, the Board proposed to simplify this aspect of the fixed assets rule by establishing a single time period of five years from the date of acquisition for partial occupancy of any premises acquired for future expansion, regardless of whether the premises are improved or unimproved.

    Three commenters agreed with the proposal to establish a single, uniform five-year time period for partial occupancy of any premises acquired for future expansion. Of those, one commenter stated that an increase of two years for partial occupancy of improved property is a beneficial trade-off for the one year reduction in the timeframe for partial occupancy of unimproved property. The same commenter noted that a single timeframe is easier for compliance purposes.

    Two commenters supported a uniform time period, but suggested that five years is insufficient. They recommended that, at a minimum, it should be a uniform six years, as previously provided for unimproved property. Seven commenters suggested that the time period for partial occupancy should be extended to ten years.

    Eight commenters agreed with extending the partial occupancy requirement for improved premises from three to five years, but disagreed with reducing the partial occupancy requirement for unimproved property from six to five years. Of those, two commenters posited that reducing the timeframe would increase an FCU's regulatory burden.

    One commenter suggested that the current partial occupancy requirements should be retained, but the rule should require an FCU (or a combination of an FCU, credit union service organization, and/or credit union vendor) to occupy at least 51 percent of the premises to meet the partial occupancy requirement. This commenter argued that relaxing the partial occupancy requirement would encourage FCUs to maximize non-mission related income by leasing out their property. The same commenter further stated that because FCUs are not subject to unrelated business income taxes, they have an incentive to maximize leasing income by delaying occupancy, and this would be an abuse of the credit union tax exempt status. Another commenter also supported retaining separate timeframes for improved and unimproved property, but suggested that both time periods should be lengthened to five years and eight years, respectively.

    Approximately thirteen commenters suggested that regulatory timeframes for occupancy should be eliminated entirely. These commenters generally argued that an FCU should have the ability to make its own determination, in its FAM program or by board policy, about how much time it needs to reach full or partial occupancy of its property.

    The Board has carefully weighed these comments, but disagrees with commenters who suggested that regulatory timeframes for occupancy should be eliminated.

    Unlike the five percent aggregate limit, which is a safety and soundness safeguard but is not statutorily required, the occupancy requirements in the fixed assets rule have statutory underpinnings. As discussed in the preamble to the July 2014 proposal, an FCU may not hold (or lease to unrelated third parties) real property indefinitely without fully occupying the premises. Section 107(4) of the FCU Act authorizes an FCU to purchase, hold, and dispose of property necessary or incidental to its operations.10 NCUA has long held that this provision means an FCU may only invest in property it intends to use to transact credit union business or in property that supports its internal operations or member services.11 There is no authority in the FCU Act for an FCU to invest in real estate for speculative purposes or to otherwise engage in real estate activities that do not support its purpose of providing financial services to its members. While there is no required timeframe in the fixed assets rule within which an FCU must achieve full occupation, the rule requires an FCU to partially occupy the premises within a time period set by the rule and sufficient to show, among other things, that the FCU will fully occupy the premises within a reasonable time.12

    10 12 U.S.C. 1757(4) (emphasis added).

    11See 43 FR 58176, 58178 (Dec. 13, 1978) (“Part 107(4) of the Federal Credit Union Act provides that a credit union may purchase, hold, and dispose of property necessary or incidental to its operations. Retaining a piece of property whose only purpose is to provide office space to other entities is clearly not necessary or incidental to the Federal credit union's operations. Further, investing in, or holding, property with the intent of realizing a profit from appreciation at a future sale is also outside the powers of a Federal credit union.”); 69 FR 58039, 58041 (Sept. 29, 2004) (“Federal credit unions are chartered for the purpose of providing financial services to their members and it is not permissible for them to engage in real estate activities that do not support that purpose.”)

    12 12 CFR 701.36(b).

    The Board emphasizes that FCUs already have significant leeway and flexibility in managing real property acquired for future use, given that there is no required time period for full occupation. Moreover, the proposed elimination of the 30-month requirement for partial occupancy waiver requests, which is discussed below, would allow FCUs additional leeway to apply for a waiver later if it deemed appropriate.

    The Board continues to believe that, as discussed in the preamble to the July 2014 proposal, a single time period for partial occupancy would simplify and improve the rule.13 However, in light of commenters' concerns that shortening the time period for unimproved property from six to five years would increase regulatory burden, the Board has decided to maintain the current time allowed for partial occupancy of unimproved property. Accordingly, the Board is proposing a single six-year time period for partial occupancy in this 2015 proposal. The proposed amendment therefore retains the current time period for unimproved land or unimproved real property, and extends the current time period for improved premises by three years, which the Board believes is a significant measure of relief for FCUs.

    13 The Board notes that a single time period would be consistent with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's (OCC) uniform five-year requirement for real estate acquired by banks for future expansion.

    2. Waivers

    Under the current rule, an FCU must submit its request for a waiver from the partial occupancy requirement within 30 months after the property is acquired. In the July 2014 proposal, the Board proposed to eliminate the 30-month requirement and allow FCUs to apply for a waiver beyond that time frame as appropriate. Seven commenters provided feedback on this aspect of the proposal, and all supported it. In light of the unanimous support from commenters on this aspect of the July 2014 proposal, the Board is restating in this 2015 proposal, without change, the proposed waiver provision originally proposed in the July 2014 proposal. Although the Board is incorporating the same proposed amendments to the partial occupancy waiver requirements, the Board still invites comments on this subject to help inform its decision for the final rule. The Board notes that it is unnecessary for commenters to the July 2014 proposal to resubmit their same comments again. NCUA has considered those previously submitted comments and will consider them again before finalizing this rule. However, commenters with new, different, or updated comments should feel free to submit them as provided for above.

    3. Definition

    Although the Board did not propose amending any current definitions in the fixed assets rule, five commenters expressed concern about the definition of “partial occupancy,” as clarified by the March 2013 proposal. Of those, four commenters suggested that the clarification reduced an FCU's ability to meet partial occupancy requirements, particularly with respect to ATMs deployed on vacant land purchased for future expansion. The commenters asked that any subsequent final rule correct this. One commenter stated generally that any subsequent final rule should reinstate the previous definition.

    The Board reiterates that, as indicated in the preambles to the March 2013 proposal and the corresponding final rule,14 the clarification of the partial occupancy definition did not impose any new regulatory requirements on FCUs or amend the meaning of that term. Rather, it only clarified the partial occupancy provisions by reflecting NCUA's interpretation of them. Accordingly, the Board is not proposing any amendments in this 2015 proposal as a result of those comments.

    14 78 FR 17136 (Mar. 20, 2013); 78 FR 57250 (Sept. 18, 2013).

    E. Full Occupancy

    The current rule does not set a specific time period within which an FCU must achieve full occupation of premises acquired for future expansion. However, partial occupancy of the premises is required within a set timeframe and must be sufficient to show, among other things, that the FCU will fully occupy the premises within a reasonable time and consistent with its plan for the premises.15 The Board did not propose to amend the full occupancy requirement in the July 2014 proposal, but it requested public comment on this topic.

    15 Under the current rule, if an FCU acquires premises for future expansion and does not fully occupy them within one year, it must have an FCU board resolution in place by the end of that year with definitive plans for full occupation. 12 CFR 701.36(d)(1). The reasonableness of an FCU's plan for full occupation is evaluated through the examination process and based upon such factors as the defensibility of projection assumptions, the operational and financial feasibility of the plan, and the overall suitability of the plan relative to the FCU's field of membership.

    At least four commenters said the current rule should be retained, and NCUA should not set a specific time period for full occupancy. Of those, three commenters said FCUs should have flexibility under the rule. Three commenters noted that FCU boards and management should determine the best timeframe in which to fully develop property. One commenter said there is no need to modify the full occupancy requirement, but NCUA should consider improving the definition of full occupancy.

    One commenter stated generally that the full occupancy requirement should be modified and determined on a case-by-case basis. Another commenter suggested that if the requirement is modified, at a minimum, the timeframe for full occupancy should be six years for all property, along with a simple extension process. Two commenters suggested that the full occupancy requirement should be eliminated entirely. Three commenters suggested that NCUA should replace the “full” occupancy requirement with a “significant” or “substantial” occupancy requirement. Of these, one commenter said “substantial occupancy” should be defined as fifty-one percent occupancy. Another commenter suggested “substantial occupancy” should be defined as “within a reasonable period of time consistent with FCU's usage plan.”

    One commenter, however, argued that the full occupancy requirement should be stricter. This commenter suggested that NCUA should require full occupancy within three years of reaching partial occupancy, to ensure that FCUs are not participating in impermissible real estate activities. Citing OCC guidance, the commenter indicated that, historically, three years has been a reasonable time for national banks to reach full occupancy.

    The Board appreciates these comments and, after careful consideration of the points raised, it has determined to retain the current full occupancy provision. Accordingly, the Board is not proposing to amend the full occupancy requirement in this 2015 proposal. As discussed above, the limited authority in Section 107(4) the FCU Act means that an FCU may not hold real property indefinitely without fully occupying the premises. There is no authority for an FCU to invest speculatively in real estate or to otherwise engage in real estate activities that do not support its purpose of providing members with financial services. The Board reiterates there is no required time period within which an FCU must achieve full occupation. However, the limited authority for FCUs to invest in property granted by the FCU Act mandates that full occupancy must be achieved. The Board believes the current rule gives FCUs substantial flexibility in managing fixed assets acquired for future use within the authority granted in the FCU Act, and thus, no changes are proposed.

    F. Leasing

    At least five commenters recommended that the fixed assets rule be amended to allow an FCU to generate income from premises. Of those, three commenters urged NCUA to consider a “de minimis ownership exception” under which land that is not valued at more than three percent of shares and retained earnings would not be subject to the occupancy requirements. One commenter suggested that more flexibility is needed for an FCU to retain undeveloped property on a long-term basis and encouraged NCUA to allow 2.5 percent to 5 percent of an FCU's net worth to be invested in undeveloped or vacant properties. Another commenter argued that excess space should not sit idle if it could be used to generate value for the membership, even if such space is not specifically used for member business.

    At least seven commenters argued that the requirement for full occupancy should allow for an FCU to lease or sublease a portion of its premises as needed. Two of these commenters argued that restrictive occupancy requirements reduce access to commercial space and limit an FCU's ability to acquire space in the most cost-effective manner. Four commenters cited a number of reasons why an FCU might want to lease its property, including zoning or retail requirements, city entitlement, or other use requirements.

    Four commenters discussed credit union mergers. They suggested that, in a merger, space may be available in an existing building if operations are combined. The ability to lease or sublease this excess space could permit an FCU to realize short-term income from the lease while retaining property that fits into the FCU's long-term plans for member service. Four commenters suggested that an FCU should be allowed to maximize long-term assets, instead of avoiding reasonable acquisitions or underutilizing space to ensure compliance with occupancy requirements.

    As discussed above, NCUA's long-standing interpretation is that the limited statutory authority for FCUs to invest in property mandates that full occupancy must be achieved, and there is no authority for an FCU to engage in real estate activities that do not support its purpose of providing financial services to its members. The Board has also long recognized, however, that in planning for future expansion, FCUs should be able to sell or lease their excess capacity as a matter of good business practice.16 Indeed, the incidental powers rule permits the sale or lease of excess capacity in FCU fixed assets.17 Excess capacity is the excess use or capacity remaining in facilities, equipment, or services that an FCU properly invested in with the good faith intent to serve its members, and where the FCU reasonably anticipates that the excess capacity will be taken up by the future expansion of services to its members.18 An FCU's sale or lease of excess capacity may, for example, involve leasing excess office space, sharing employees, or using data processing systems to process information for third parties.19 However, in adopting the excess capacity provision in the incidental powers rule, the Board noted in 2001 that:

    16 66 FR 40845, 40851 (Aug. 6, 2001).

    17 The incidental powers rule defines an incidental powers activity as one that is necessary or requisite to enable an FCU to carry on effectively the business for which it is incorporated. An activity meets the definition of an incidental powers activity if it: (1) Is convenient or useful in carrying out the mission or business of credit unions consistent with the FCU Act; (2) is the functional equivalent or logical outgrowth of activities that are part of the mission or business of credit unions; and (3) involves risks similar in nature to those already assumed as part of the business of credit unions. 12 CFR 721.2.

    18 12 CFR 721.3(e).

    19 Id.

    NCUA has consistently held the position that an FCU has limited authority in the leasing of fixed assets and the sale of excess data processing capacity. FCUs are not in the business of providing others with data processing capacity or any other service that is not within their express or incidental powers; rather, they are cooperative financial institutions organized to provide financial services to their members.20

    20 66 FR 40845, 40851 (Aug. 6, 2001).

    Accordingly, the Board emphasizes that an FCU already has the authority under the incidental powers rule to obtain short-term income by leasing excess capacity in its fixed assets to third parties. However, there are limits to that authority. The fixed assets must have been acquired by an FCU, in good faith, for the purpose of providing financial services to its members, and the FCU must reasonably anticipate, and plan,21 that the excess capacity will be fully occupied by the FCU in the future.

    21See 12 CFR 701.36(d)(1).

    II. Summary of the 2015 Proposal

    As discussed above, because of the public comments received in response to the July 2014 proposal, the Board is issuing this 2015 proposal to address commenters' requests for additional regulatory relief from the aggregate limit on fixed assets. The Board is also incorporating similar partial occupancy requirements from the July 2014 proposal, with one modification to the proposed single time period for partial occupancy, to provide additional relief to FCUs.

    A. Aggregate Limit On Investments in Fixed Assets

    Section 701.36(c) of the current fixed assets rule establishes an aggregate limit on investments in fixed assets for FCUs with $1,000,000 or more in assets.22 For an FCU meeting this asset threshold, the aggregate of all its investments in fixed assets is limited to five percent of its shares and retained earnings, unless NCUA grants a waiver establishing a higher limit.23 The aggregate limit is not statutorily required by the FCU Act. Rather, it was established by regulation in 1978 as a safety and soundness measure to prevent losses or impaired operations of FCUs from overinvestment in non-income producing fixed assets.24

    22 As of September 30, 2014, 226 of the total 3,707 FCUs with assets over $1,000,000 are currently above the five percent aggregate limit.

    23 12 CFR 701.36(c).

    24 43 FR 58176 (Dec. 13, 1978).

    In the past few years, and most recently in response to the July 2014 proposal, FCUs have asked the Board to consider increasing or eliminating the aggregate limit.25 In addition to the comments discussed above, FCUs have repeatedly mentioned that the five percent limit is too low for FCUs to effectively manage their investments in fixed assets and to achieve growth. They have argued that the current limit does not allow FCUs adequate flexibility in acquiring fixed assets to serve their members' needs.

    25See, e.g., 75 FR 66295, 66297 (Oct. 28, 2010); 78 FR 57250, 57250 (Sept. 18, 2013); 79 FR 46727 (Aug. 11, 2014).

    As discussed in the preamble to the July 2014 proposal, the objective of the fixed assets rule is to place reasonable limits on the risk associated with excessive or speculative acquisition of fixed assets.26 Upon further review and consideration, the Board believes this objective can be effectively achieved through the supervisory process as opposed to a regulatory limit. Accordingly, the Board proposes to eliminate the five percent aggregate limit on FCU investments in fixed assets. It also proposes to eliminate the related provisions governing waivers of the aggregate limit because those provisions will no longer be necessary in the absence of a prescriptive regulatory limit.

    26See 43 FR 26317 (June 19, 1978) (“This regulation is intended to ensure that the officials of FCUs have considered all relevant factors prior to committing large sums of members' funds to the acquisition of fixed assets.”); 49 FR 50365, 50366 (Dec. 28, 1984) (“The intent of the regulation is to prevent, or at least curb, excessive investments in fixed assets and the related costs and expenses that may be beyond the financial capability of the credit union.”); 54 FR 18466, 18467 (May 1, 1989) (“[T]he purpose of the regulation is to provide some control on the potential risk of excess investment and/or commitment to invest substantial sums in fixed assets.”).

    An FCU's ability to afford a given level of fixed assets depends on a variety of factors, including its level of net worth and earnings, its operational efficiency, and risks to its future earnings and growth inherent in the FCU's balance sheet and strategic plans. Excessive levels of fixed assets can create earnings and capital accumulation problems for an FCU, and lead to greater losses to the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF), if the FCU fails and its fixed assets cannot be sold at or above their recorded value. Fixed assets not only hold member funds in non-income producing assets, but they also typically involve a material increase in FCU operating expenses, such as depreciation, maintenance, and other related expenses. According to NCUA data, excessive levels of fixed assets have contributed to the failure of some credit unions. Of the 63 FCU failures 27 that resulted in a loss to the NCUSIF since 2009, excessive levels of fixed assets contributed in part to the failures in 10 of those cases (16 percent), and were a primary contributor in 3 cases (5 percent). However, overall, excessive fixed asset levels have not been a disproportionate contributor to FCU failures. In many cases, FCUs have effectively managed elevated levels of fixed assets to safely achieve member service and growth objectives. For the 264 FCUs with fixed assets ratios exceeding five percent as of December 2004, 197 (74.62 percent) were still active as of December 2013. In comparison, the total number of credit unions from December 2004 to 2013 went from 9,128 to 6,554, representing a 71.8 percent survival rate. Thus, the level of consolidation in FCUs with elevated fixed assets levels has been no higher than for FCUs with lower levels. Also, CAMEL rating and net worth ratio distributions were not significantly different for FCUs with elevated fixed assets levels than for those without. Further, over the last 10 years, NCUA has granted approximately 500 waivers to FCUs to operate at levels of fixed assets above the five percent aggregate limit, including some above 20 percent of total assets.28

    27 This figure includes all FCUs over $1,000,000 in assets. FCUs under that asset threshold and federally insured, state-chartered credit unions are not subject to the aggregate limit and therefore excluded from this figure.

    28 Since 2004, approximately 94 percent of waivers were for levels of fixed assets less than 10 percent of total assets.

    In addition, the experience with FCUs operating with higher fixed assets ratios under NCUA's former Regulatory Flexibility Program (RegFlex) 29 indicates that the risks associated with investment in fixed assets are manageable through supervision. Out of the 149 former RegFlex FCUs with fixed assets over the five percent aggregate limit, 120 FCUs (80 percent) were still operating nearly a decade later.30 By comparison, as noted above, the overall survival rate for all credit unions during the same time period was 71.8 percent. Further, 25 of those 120 FCUs (20 percent) have continued to operate effectively above the five percent aggregate limit, indicating that some FCUs can safely maintain elevated levels of fixed assets over time.

    29 The RegFlex Program was established in 2002, 66 FR 58656 (Nov. 23, 2001), and eliminated in 2012, 77 FR 31981 (May 31, 2012). RegFlex relieved FCUs from certain regulatory restrictions and granted them additional powers if they demonstrated sustained superior performance as measured by CAMEL ratings and net worth classification. One of the flexibilities enjoyed by RegFlex FCUs at one time was relief from the aggregate limit on fixed assets.

    30 As of December 31, 2013, in 95 of those 120 FCU (80 percent), fixed assets levels had declined to under 5 percent.

    Therefore, upon further analysis, the Board has determined that oversight of FCU investments in fixed assets would be effectively achieved through the supervisory process, and evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The Board emphasizes, however, that NCUA's supervisory expectations remain high. The Board cautions that the proposed elimination of the aggregate limit should not be interpreted as an invitation for FCUs to make excessive, speculative, or otherwise irresponsible investments in fixed assets. Rather, the 2015 proposal reflects the Board's recognition that relief from the prescriptive limit on fixed assets is appropriate, but FCU investments in fixed assets are, and will continue to be, subject to supervisory review. If an FCU has an elevated level of fixed assets, NCUA will maintain close oversight to ensure it conducts prudent planning and analysis with respect to fixed assets acquisitions, can afford any such acquisitions, and properly manages any ongoing risk to its earnings and capital.

    If the Board finalizes this 2015 proposal, NCUA will issue updated supervisory guidance to examiners that will be shared with FCUs. The guidance will reflect current supervisory expectations 31 that require an FCU to demonstrate appropriate due diligence, ongoing board and management oversight,32 and prudent financial analysis to ensure the FCU can afford any impact on earnings and net worth levels caused by its purchase of fixed assets. The guidance will ensure examiners effectively identify any risks to safety and soundness due to an FCU's excessive investment in fixed assets. It will focus on evaluating the quality of an FCU's fixed assets management relative to its planning for fixed assets acquisitions and controlling the related financial risks. The guidance will also focus on evaluating an FCU's quality of earnings and capital relative to its projected performance under both baseline (expected) and stressed scenarios.

    31See NCUA Examiner's Guide, Chapter 8.

    32 The credit union's board needs to approve plans for any investment in fixed assets that will materially affect the credit union's earnings. Credit union management should only purchase fixed assets in compliance with policy approved by the credit union's board.

    B. Partial Occupancy

    For the reasons discussed above, the Board is incorporating, with one change, the proposed amendments in the July 2014 proposal relating to the partial occupancy requirements for FCU premises acquired for future expansion. Specifically, the Board is proposing to require an FCU to partially occupy any premises acquired for future expansion, regardless of whether the premises are improved or unimproved property, within six years from the date of the FCU's acquisition of those premises. In the July 2014 proposal, the Board had proposed to require partial occupancy within a uniform five years. However, as discussed above, in response to public comments, this 2015 proposal provides six years rather than five years for partial occupancy, which retains the current time period for unimproved land or unimproved real property and extends the current time period for improved premises by three years. In addition, the Board is reissuing in this 2015 proposal, without change, the amendment in the July 2014 proposal to eliminate the requirement that an FCU that wishes to apply for a waiver of the partial occupancy requirement must do so within 30 months of acquisition of the property acquired for future expansion.

    C. Conforming Amendments

    The Board is also proposing to make conforming amendments to the fixed assets rule's scope and definitions sections. Specifically, the Board proposes to amend § 701.36(a) of the current fixed assets rule to remove reference to the aggregate limit on FCU investments in fixed assets. This language is unnecessary with the proposed removal of the aggregate limit. This 2015 proposal also amends § 701.36(b) of the current fixed assets rule to remove the regulatory definitions of the following terms: “fixed assets,” “furniture, fixtures, and equipment,” “investments in fixed assets,” “retained earnings,” and “shares.” These definitions are included in the current rule to provide meaning to certain terms used in the regulatory provision establishing the aggregate limit on fixed assets. With the proposed removal of the aggregate limit, however, inclusion of these regulatory definitions is no longer necessary.

    D. Amended Title

    Finally, the Board proposes to amend the title of the regulation to more accurately reflect its amended scope and applicability. Currently, the rule is titled “Federal credit union ownership of fixed assets.” If the 2015 proposal is finalized, the rule will be retitled “Federal credit union occupancy, planning, and disposal of acquired and abandoned premises.”

    E. Effect on Existing Waivers

    Should the 2015 proposal become finalized as proposed, any existing waiver of the five percent aggregate limit on fixed assets will be rendered moot as of the effective date of the final rule.

    III. Request for Public Comment

    Because the proposed amendments are intended to grant regulatory relief to FCUs, and the Board perceives no reason to delay their implementation, the Board is issuing the 2015 proposal for a 30-day public comment period instead of NCUA's customary 60 days. Additionally, the Board already solicited comments on this subject in the July 2014 proposal. The Board invites comment on all issues discussed in this 2015 proposal; however, as noted earlier, it is not necessary for commenters to resubmit any comments they previously submitted in response to the July 2014 proposal. NCUA has already reviewed those comments and will consider them again before finalizing this rule.

    IV. Regulatory Procedures A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires that, in connection with a notice of proposed rulemaking, an agency prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of a proposed rule on small entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, however, if the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (defined for purposes of the RFA to include credit unions with assets less than $50 million) and publishes its certification and a short, explanatory statement in the Federal Register together with the rule. The 2015 proposal would provide regulatory relief to help FCUs better manage their investments in fixed assets. NCUA certifies that the 2015 proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency by rule creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or modifies an existing burden.33 For purposes of the PRA, a paperwork burden may take the form of either a reporting or a recordkeeping requirement, both referred to as information collections. The 2015 proposal provides regulatory relief to FCUs by eliminating the requirement that, for an FCU with $1,000,000 or more in assets, the aggregate of all its investments in fixed assets must not exceed five percent of its shares and retained earnings, unless it obtains a waiver from NCUA. The 2015 proposal does not impose new paperwork burdens. However, the 2015 proposal would relieve FCUs from the current requirement to obtain a waiver to exceed the five percent aggregate limit on investments in fixed assets.

    33 44 U.S.C. 3507(d); 5 CFR part 1320.

    According to NCUA records, as of September 30, 2014, there were 3,707 FCUs with assets over $1,000,000 and subject to the five percent aggregate limit on fixed assets. Of those, approximately 150 FCUs would prepare and file a new waiver request to exceed the five percent aggregate limit. This effort, which is estimated to create 15 hours burden per waiver, would no longer be required under the 2015 proposal. Accordingly, the reduction to existing paperwork burdens that would result from the 2015 proposal is analyzed below:

    Estimate of the Reduced Burden by Eliminating the Waiver Requirement

    Estimated FCUs which will no longer be required to prepare a waiver request and file a waiver request: 150.

    Frequency of waiver request: Annual.

    Reduced hour burden: 15.

    150 FCUs × 15 hours = 2250 hours annual reduced burden

    In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, NCUA intends to obtain a modification of its OMB Control Number, 3133-0040, to support these changes. NCUA is submitting a copy of the 2015 proposal to OMB, along with an application for a modification of the OMB Control Number.

    The PRA and OMB regulations require that the public be provided an opportunity to comment on the paperwork requirements, including an agency's estimate of the burden of the paperwork requirements. The Board invites comment on: (1) Whether the paperwork requirements are necessary; (2) the accuracy of NCUA's estimates on the burden of the paperwork requirements; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the paperwork requirements; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the paperwork requirements.

    Comments should be sent to the NCUA Contact and the OMB Reviewer listed below:

    NCUA Contact: Amanda Wallace, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428, Fax No. 703-837-2861, Email: [email protected]

    OMB Contact: Office of Management and Budget, ATTN: Desk Officer for the National Credit Union Administration, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503.

    C. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. NCUA, an independent regulatory agency, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. Because the fixed assets regulation applies only to FCUs, the 2015 proposal 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. As such, NCUA has determined that this rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.

    D. Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

    NCUA has determined that this rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999.34

    34 Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).

    List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 701

    Credit unions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    By the National Credit Union Administration Board, on March 19, 2015. Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board.

    For the reasons stated above, NCUA proposes to amend 12 CFR 701.36 as follows:

    PART 701—ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF FEDERAL CREDIT 1. The authority for part 701 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1752(5), 1757, 1765, 1757, 1758, 1759, 1761a, 1761b, 1766, 1767, 1782, 1784, 1786, 1787, 1789. Section 701.6 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 3717. Section 701.31 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 3601-3610. Section 701.35 is also authorized by 42 U.S.C. 4311-4312.

    2. In § 701.36 revise the section heading and paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 701.36 Federal credit union occupancy, planning, and disposal of acquired and abandoned premises.

    (a) Scope. Section 107(4) of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1757(4)) authorizes a federal credit union to purchase, hold, and dispose of property necessary or incidental to its operations. This section interprets and implements that provision by establishing occupancy, planning, and disposal requirements for acquired and abandoned premises, and by prohibiting certain transactions.

    This section applies only to federal credit unions.

    3. Revise § 701.36 paragraph (b) by removing the following definitions: “fixed assets”, “furniture, fixtures, and equipment”, “investments in fixed assets”, “retained earnings”, and “shares”. 4. Remove § 701.36 paragraph (c). 5. Revise § 701.36 paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows:

    (d) * * *

    (2) If a federal credit union acquires premises for future expansion, including unimproved land or unimproved real property, it must partially occupy them within a reasonable period, but no later than six years after the date of acquisition. NCUA may waive the partial occupation requirements. To seek a waiver, a federal credit union must submit a written request to its Regional Office and fully explain why it needs the waiver. The Regional Director will provide the federal credit union a written response, either approving or disapproving the request. The Regional Director's decision will be based on safety and soundness considerations.

    6. In § 701.36 redesignate paragraph (d) as paragraph (c) and paragraph (e) as paragraph (d).
    [FR Doc. 2015-06816 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0674; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-019-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 supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2014-05-06 for certain Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD) (now Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH) Model EC135 and MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters to correct an error. AD 2014-05-06 currently requires inspecting the flight-control bearings repetitively, replacing any loose bearing with an airworthy flight-control bearing, and installing bushings and washers. This proposed AD would require the same actions. This proposed AD results from the discovery of an error in the compliance time for AD 2014-05-06. These proposed actions are intended to prevent the affected control lever from shifting, contacting the helicopter structure, and reducing control of the helicopter.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 29, 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 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-2015-0674.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management 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

    On February 20, 2014, we issued AD 2014-05-06, Amendment 39-17779 (79 FR 13196, March 10, 2014), for certain ECD (now Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH) Model EC135 and MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters. AD 2014-05-06 requires inspecting the flight-control bearings repetitively, replacing any loose bearing with an airworthy flight-control bearing, and installing bushings and washers. AD 2014-05-06 was prompted by the discovery of loose flight control bearings because of incorrect installation. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the affected control lever shifting, contacting the helicopter structure, and reducing control of the helicopter.

    Actions Since AD 2014-05-06 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2014-05-06 (79 FR 13196, March 10, 2014), we discovered an error regarding the compliance time for certain model helicopters. Paragraph (e)(1)(i) should have required that certain actions be accomplished within the next 100 hours time-in-service or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first. However, we omitted the word “first” from that sentence, which changes the meaning of the required compliance time.

    Also since we issued AD 2014-05-06, ECD changed its name to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH. This proposed AD reflects that change and updates the contact information to obtain service documentation.

    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

    ECD, now called Airbus Helicopters, has issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) MBB BK117 C-2-67A-010, Revision 3, dated February 8, 2010, and ASB EC135-67A-019, Revision 3, dated December 16, 2009. These ASBs specify:

    • Within the next 50 flight hours (FHs), inspecting the affected bearings and, if necessary, rebonding any affected bearings or replacing the lever assembly.

    • Within 12 months, retrofitting bushings and washers on the levers to prevent movement of the bearings.

    • After the retrofit, repeating the inspection every 800 FHs or 36 months for the Model EC135 helicopters, whichever comes first, and 600 FHs or 24 months, whichever comes first, for the Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters.

    EASA classified these ASBs as mandatory and issued AD No. 2010-0058 to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    For Airbus Model EC135 P1, P2, P2+, T1, T2, and T2+ helicopters this proposed AD would require:

    • Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first, modifying the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) guidance units and the cyclic shaft by installing bushings and washers to prevent shifting of the bearings in the axial direction.

    • At intervals not to exceed 800 hours TIS or 36 months, whichever occurs first, inspecting the bearings in the LH guidance unit, RH guidance unit, cyclic control, upper guidance unit, and linear voltage differential transducer plate for play. If any bearing is loose, replacing the affected bearing with an airworthy bearing.

    For Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, this proposed AD would require:

    • Within the next 100 hours TIS or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first, modifying the LH and RH guidance units and the lateral control lever by installing bushings and washers to prevent shifting of the bearings in the axial direction.

    • At intervals not to exceed 600 hours TIS or 24 months, whichever occurs first, inspecting the bearings in the RH guidance unit, LH guidance unit, and lateral control guidance unit for play. If any bearing is loose, replacing the affected bearing with an airworthy bearing.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    Differences between this proposed AD and the EASA AD are:

    • The EASA AD is applicable to the EC 635 helicopter, whereas this proposed AD is not because the EC 635 helicopter is not type certificated in the U.S.

    • The EASA AD requires an initial inspection within 50 flight hours or one month, whichever occurs first after May 31, 2008, and a modification within the next 12 months. This proposed AD would require the modification within 100 hours TIS or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first, and no inspection until after the modification has been accomplished.

    • The EASA AD applies to all EC135 and MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, while this proposed AD would apply to certain serial-numbered Model EC135 and Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, as recommended by the appropriate ECD ASB.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 175 Model EC135 and 112 Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs would average $85 per work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect the following costs:

    • For EC135 helicopters, it would take about 32 work-hours to perform the modification. Parts would cost about $312. The total cost for the modification would be about $3,032 per helicopter and $530,600 for the U.S. operator fleet. The repetitive inspections would require 6.5 work-hours for a cost of about $553 per helicopter and about $96,775 for the fleet per inspection cycle.

    • For MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, it would take about 32 work-hours to perform the modification. Parts would cost about $396. The total cost for the modification would be $3,116 per helicopter and $348,992 for the U.S. operator fleet. The cost for the repetitive inspections thereafter would be about $85 per helicopter and $9,520 for the fleet per inspection cycle.

    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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-05-06, Amendment 39-17779 (79 FR 13196, March 10, 2014), and adding the following new AD: Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH): Docket No. FAA-2015-0674; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-019-AD. (a) Applicability

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

    (1) Model EC135 P1, P2, P2+, T1, T2, and T2+ helicopters, serial number (S/N) 0005 through 00829, with a tail rotor control lever, part number (P/N) L672M2802205 or L672M1012212; cyclic control lever, P/N L671M1005250; collective control lever assembly, P/N L671M2020108; or collective control plate, P/N L671M5040207; installed; and

    (2) Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, S/N 9004 through 9310, with a tail rotor control lever assembly, P/N B672M1007101 or B672M1807101; tail rotor control lever, P/N B672M1002202 or L672M2802205; or lateral control lever assembly, P/N B670M1008101, installed.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as incorrectly installed flight control bearings. This condition could cause the affected control lever to shift and contact the helicopter structure, resulting in reduced control of the helicopter.

    (c) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2014-05-06, Amendment 39-17779 (79 FR 13196, March 10, 2014).

    (d) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 29, 2015.

    (e) Compliance

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

    (f) Required Actions

    (1) For Model EC135 P1, P2, P2+, T1, T2, and T2+ helicopters:

    (i) Within the next 100 hours time-inservice (TIS) or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first, modify the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) guidance units and the cyclic shaft by installing bushings and washers to prevent shifting of the bearings in the axial direction as follows:

    (A) Remove and disassemble the LH guidance unit and install a bushing, P/N L672M1012260, between the bearing block and the lever of the LH guidance unit as depicted in Detail A of Figure 5 of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin EC135-67A-019, Revision 3, dated December 16, 2009 (EC135 ASB).

    (B) For helicopters without a yaw brake, remove and disassemble the RH guidance unit and install a bushing, P/N L672M1012260, between the bearing block and the lever as depicted in Detail B of Figure 5 of EC135 ASB.

    (C) Remove and disassemble the cyclic shaft and install a washer, P/N L671M1005260, between the bearing block and the lever as depicted in Detail C of Figure 6 of EC135 ASB.

    (D) Remove the collective control rod from the bellcrank and install a washer, P/N L221M1042208, on each side of the collective control rod and bellcrank as depicted in Detail D of Figure 6 of EC135 ASB.

    (E) At intervals not to exceed 800 hours TIS or 36 months, whichever occurs first, inspect the bearings in the LH guidance unit, RH guidance unit, cyclic control, upper guidance unit, and linear voltage differential transducer plate for play. If any bearing is loose, replace the affected bearing with an airworthy bearing.

    (2) For Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters:

    (i) Within the next 100 hours TIS or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first, modify the LH and RH guidance units and the lateral control lever by installing bushings and washers to prevent shifting of the bearings in the axial direction as follows:

    (A) Remove and disassemble the RH guidance unit and install a bushing, P/N L672M1012260, between the lever and the bracket as depicted in Detail B of Figure 4 of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin MBB BK117 C-2-67A-010, Revision 3, dated February 8, 2010 (BK117 ASB). Remove and disassemble the LH guidance unit and install a bushing, P/N L672M1012260, between the lever and the bracket as depicted in Detail C of Figure 4 of BK117 ASB.

    (B) Remove the lateral control lever and install new bushings in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.C(9)(a) through 3.C(9)(g), of BK 117 ASB.

    (C) Identify the modified lever assembly by writing “MBB BK117 C-2-67A-010” on the lever with permanent marking pen and protect with a single layer of lacquer (CM 421 or equivalent).

    (D) Apply corrosion preventive paste (CM 518 or equivalent) on the shank of the screws and install airworthy parts as depicted in Figure 5 of BK117 ASB.

    (E) At intervals not to exceed 600 hours TIS or 24 months, whichever occurs first, inspect the bearings in the RH guidance unit, LH guidance unit, and lateral control guidance unit for play. If any bearing is loose, replace the affected bearing with an airworthy bearing.

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management 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.

    (h) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2010-0058, dated March 30, 2010. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2015-0674.

    (i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6710, Main Rotor Control.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 18, 2015. Lance T. Gant, Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06806 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0498; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-152-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 supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2007-16-08, which applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, and 747SR series airplanes. AD 2007-16-08 currently requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the station 800 frame assembly, and repair if necessary. Since we issued AD 2007-16-08, we have received additional reports of cracks found at the forward and aft inner chord strap and angles on the station 800 frame on the left-side and right-side main entry doors. This proposed AD would expand the inspection area. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracks that could extend and fully sever the frame, which could result in development of skin cracks that could lead to rapid depressurization of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 14, 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-2015-0498.

    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-2015-0498; 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:

    Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6432; 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 proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0498; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-152-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

    On July 30, 2007, we issued AD 2007-16-08, Amendment 39-15147 (72 FR 44728, August 9, 2007), for all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, and 747SR series airplanes. AD 2007-16-08 requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the station 800 frame assembly, and repair if necessary. AD 2007-16-08 resulted from several reports of cracks of the station 800 frame assembly on airplanes that occurred sooner than previously anticipated. We issued AD 2007-16-08 to detect and correct fatigue cracks that could extend and fully sever the frame, which could result in development of skin cracks that could lead to rapid depressurization of the airplane.

    Actions Since AD 2007-16-08, Amendment 39-15147 (72 FR 44728, August 9, 2007), Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2007-16-08, Amendment 39-15147 (72 FR 44728, August 9, 2007), we received additional reports of cracking found at the forward and aft inner chord strap and angles on the station 800 frame on the left-side and right-side main entry doors. These cracks are outside the inspection area of AD 2007-16-08. We have determined that additional inspections are needed. This proposed AD would expand the inspection area to include the station 800 frame between stringer 18 and stringer 30.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2451, Revision 2, dated June 13, 2014. The service information describes procedure for inspecting and repairing cracking of the door number 2 forward edge frame assembly at body station 800. 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

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2007-16-08, Amendment 39-15147 (72 FR 44728, August 9, 2007), this proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2007-16-08. Those requirements are referenced in the service information identified previously, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this proposed AD. This proposed AD would require additional inspections. 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

    Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2451, Revision 2, dated June 13, 2014, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, 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 124 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
    Repetitive inspections Up to 53 work-hours × $85 per hour = $4,505 per inspection cycle $0 Up to $4,505 per inspection cycle Up to $558,620 per inspection cycle

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2007-16-08, Amendment 39-15147 (72 FR 44728, August 9, 2007), and adding the following new AD: The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-0498; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-152-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 14, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2007-16-08, Amendment 39-15147 (72 FR 44728, August 9, 2007).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, and 747SR series airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks found on the station 800 frame on the left-side and right-side main entry doors (MED), at the forward and aft inner chord strap and angles, which are outside the inspection area of AD 2007-16-08, Amendment 39-15147 (72 FR 44728, August 9, 2007). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracks that could extend and fully sever the frame, which could result in development of skin cracks that could lead to rapid depressurization of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspections of Station 800 Frame Assembly Between Stringer 14 and Stringer 30

    Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2451, Revision 2, dated June 13, 2014: Do a detailed inspection for cracking in the inner chord strap, angles, and exposed web adjacent to the inner chords, and do surface and open hole high-frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking in the inner chord strap and angles of the station 800 frame assembly between stringer 14 and stringer 30, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2451, Revision 2, dated June 13, 2014. Repeat the inspections at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2451, Revision 2, dated June 13, 2014.

    (h) Repair of Cracking

    If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (i) Exception to the Service Information

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2451, Revision 2, dated June 13, 2014, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 2 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified time after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) The Condition column of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2451, Revision 2, dated June 13, 2014, refers to total flight cycles “as of the Revision 2 date of this service bulletin.” This AD, however applies to airplanes with the specified total flight cycles or total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD.

    (j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the inspections and repairs of the inner chord strap and angles of the station 800 frame assembly between stringer 14 and stringer 18 required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2451, Revision 1, dated November 10, 2005.

    (k) 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) 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.

    (4) AMOCs approved for AD 2007-16-08, Amendment 39-15147 (72 FR 44728, August 9, 2007), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

    (l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6432; 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 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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 19, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07081 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0676; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-164-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 BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of several events where pilots experienced difficulty in lateral control of the airplane after doing a climb through heavy rain conditions and a determination that the cause was water ingress in the aileron control pulley assembly. This proposed AD would require, for certain airplanes, inspecting for correct clearance and rework if necessary, and, for certain other airplanes, installing a cover for the aileron pulley assembly. We are proposing this AD to prevent water ingress in the aileron control pulley assembly, which could freeze in cold conditions and result in reduced control of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 14, 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-2015-0676; 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:

    Fabio Buttitta, 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 516-228-7303; 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-2015-0676; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-164-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-2014-23, dated July 18, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    There have been several reports whereby pilots have experienced difficulty in lateral control following climb through heavy rain conditions. In each event, the pilots were able to overcome this difficulty without disconnecting the aileron control. An investigation has determined that the root cause of the restricted movement of the aileron was due to water ingress into the wing root aileron control pulley assembly through a gap on the wing-to-fuselage fairing resulting in freezing of the aileron control system.

    If not corrected, this condition could result in reduced lateral control of the aeroplane.

    This [Canadian] AD mandates [for certain airplanes] the incorporation of a cover for the aileron pulley assembly [and inspection and rework if necessary] to prevent water ingress in the aileron control pulley assembly [and for certain other airplanes, mandates an inspection and rework if necessary].

    The inspection involves doing a general visual inspection for correct clearance. 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-2015-0676.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued the following service information:

    • Service Bulletin 700-1A11-27-034, Revision 04, dated September 4, 2014;

    • Service Bulletin 700-27-076, Revision 04, dated September 4, 2014;

    • Service Bulletin 700-27-5004, Revision 04, dated September 4, 2014; and

    • Service Bulletin 700-27-6004, Revision 04, dated September 4, 2014.

    This service information describes procedures, for certain airplanes, for installing a cover for the No. 1 aileron pulley, including an inspection for correct clearance and rework, and for certain other airplanes, for an inspection for correct clearance and rework. 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 60 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 9 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $45,900, or $765 per product.

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    We 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-2015-0676; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-164-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 14, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, having serial numbers 9002 through 9520 inclusive and 9998.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of several events where pilots experienced difficulty in lateral control of the airplane after doing a climb through heavy rain conditions and a determination that the cause was water ingress in the aileron control pulley assembly. We are issuing this AD to prevent water ingress in the aileron control pulley assembly, which could freeze in cold conditions and result in reduced control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Installation of Cover for the Aileron Pulley Assembly

    Except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD, for airplanes on which a cover for the No. 1 aileron pulley was not installed as of the effective date of this AD: Within 150 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, install a cover for the No. 1 aileron pulley, including doing a general visual inspection for correct clearance and rework as applicable, in accordance with paragraph C., “PART B—Modification,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletins identified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) for this AD.

    (1) For Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes: Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-076, Revision 04, dated September 4, 2014; or 700-27-6004, Revision 04, dated September 4, 2014.

    (2) For Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes: Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-27-034, Revision 04, dated September 4, 2014; or 700-27-5004, Revision 04, dated September 4, 2014.

    (h) Inspection and Rework

    Except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD, for airplanes that have incorporated a cover for the No. 1 aileron pulley using the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD as of the effective date of this AD: Within 150 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection for correct clearance and, before further flight, rework, as applicable, in accordance with paragraph B., “PART A—Inspection and Rework,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.

    (1) For Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes: Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-076, dated March 5, 2012; or 700-27-6004, dated March 5, 2012.

    (2) For Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes: Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-27-034, dated March 5, 2012; or 700-27-5004, dated March 5, 2012.

    (i) Re-Identification of Overwing Panels

    Except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD, for airplanes on which the Service Non-Incorporated Engineering Orders (SNIEO) or Service Requests for Product Support Action (SRPSA) that are listed in table 2 of paragraph 1.A., “Effectivity,” in the service information identified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD have been incorporated: Within 150 flight cycles from the effective date of this AD, do the re-identification of the overwing panels, in accordance with paragraph 2.B(2)(g) of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-076, Revision 04, dated September 4, 2014.

    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-6004, Revision 04, dated September 4, 2014.

    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-27-034, Revision 04, dated September 4, 2014.

    (j) Exception to the Requirements of Paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD

    Airplanes on which the SRPSA, as listed in table 1 of paragraph 1.A., “Effectivity,” in the service information identified in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD has been accomplished as of the effective date of this AD, meet the intent of paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD and no further action is required.

    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-076, Revision 04, dated September 4, 2014.

    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-6004, Revision 04, dated September 4, 2014.

    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-27-034, Revision 04, dated September 4, 2014.

    (k) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(8) of this AD, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-27-034, Revision 01, dated July 16, 2012.

    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-27-034, Revision 02, dated June 17, 2014.

    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-076, Revision 01, dated July 16, 2012.

    (4) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-076, Revision 02, dated June 17, 2014.

    (5) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-5004, Revision 01, dated July 16, 2012.

    (6) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-5004, Revision 02, dated June 17, 2014.

    (7) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-6004, Revision 01, dated July 16, 2012.

    (8) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-6004, Revision 02, dated June 17, 2014.

    (l) 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.

    (m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-23, dated July 18, 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-2015-0676.

    (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 19, 2015. Michael Kaszyscki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07072 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0170; FRL-9925-23-Region 7] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri, Control of Sulfur Emissions From Stationary Boilers AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve an amendment to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Missouri on October 17, 2013, related to the Missouri rule “Control of Sulfur Emissions from Stationary Boilers.” The SIP revision is administrative and provides clarity on the applicability of emission limits and removes definitions originally included in this rule which have been moved to the “Definitions and Common Reference Tables” rule.

    DATES:

    Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by April 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0170, by mail to Larry Gonzalez, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Larry Gonzalez, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913-551-7041, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    EPA is proposing to approve an amendment to the SIP submitted by the State of Missouri on October 17, 2013, related to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-5.570 “Control of Sulfur Emissions from Stationary Boilers.” The SIP revision is administrative and provides clarity on the applicability of emission limits specified at 10 CSR 10-5.570(3)(A)2. Additionally, the amendment removes definitions originally included in 10 CSR 10-5.570 which have been moved to 10 CSR 10.6.020 “Definitions and Common Reference Tables”.

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: March 17, 2015. Mark Hague, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07125 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0033; FRL-9925-20-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Public Participation for Air Quality Permit Applications AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve two provisions submitted by the State of Texas as revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) on July 2, 2010, specific to the applicability of the public notice requirements to applications for Plant-Wide Applicability (PAL) permits and standard permits for concrete batch plants without enhanced controls. Today's proposal and the accompanying direct final action will complete the rulemaking process started in our December 13, 2012, proposal and approve the public notice provisions into the Texas SIP. The EPA is proposing to convert the public notice applicability provisions for Texas Flexible Permits from a final conditional approval to a full approval. The EPA is proposing approval of these revisions pursuant to section 110 and parts C and D of the Federal Clean Air Act.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be received on or before April 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be mailed to Ms. Adina Wiley, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Adina Wiley, 214-665-2115, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the final rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action no further activity is contemplated. If the EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and those public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: March 16, 2015. Samuel Coleman, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07123 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0028; FRL-9925-47-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing conditional approval for two State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) for the State of West Virginia on July 1, 2014 and June 6, 2012. These revisions pertain to West Virginia's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program and include provisions for preconstruction permitting requirements for major sources of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) found in West Virginia regulations. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before April 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0028 by one of the following methods:

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

    B. Email: [email protected]

    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0028, David Campbell, Associate Director, Office of Permits and Air Toxics, Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0028. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittals are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE., Charleston, West Virginia 25304.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Paul Wentworth, (215) 814-2183, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The WVDEP submitted two SIP revisions to EPA on June 6, 2012 (the 2012 submittal) and on July 1, 2014 (the 2014 submittal). EPA is acting on these two submittals as a whole.1 A summary of all the changes made in each of the submittals has been included in the docket for this action in a document titled, “Summary of West Virginia PSD Changes.” These SIP revision requests, if approved, would revise West Virginia's currently approved PSD program by amending Series 14 under Title 45 of West Virginia Code of State Rules (45CSR14).

    1 EPA is proposing to act on both SIP submittals in this notice because each submittal contains necessary procedural information related to West Virginia's revisions to its PSD regulations and development of its SIP submittals, which are required for SIP revisions by 40 CFR parts 51 and 52.

    On May 16, 2008, EPA promulgated a rule to implement the 1997 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), including changes to the New Source Review (NSR) program (the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule). See 73 FR 28321. The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule revised the NSR program requirements to establish the framework for implementing preconstruction permit review for the PM2.5 NAAQS in both attainment and nonattainment areas.2 The 2008 NSR PM2.5 rule: (1) Required NSR permits to address directly emitted PM2.5 and precursor pollutants; (2) established significant emission rates for direct PM2.5 and precursor pollutants (including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX)); (3) established PM2.5 emission offsets; and (4) required states to account for gases that condense to form particles (condensables) in PM2.5 emission limits.3

    2 The PSD permitting program is the NSR permit program in areas attaining a particular NAAQS.

    3 On October 25, 2012, EPA took final action to amend the definition of “regulated NSR pollutant” promulgated in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule regarding the particulate matter (PM) condensable provision at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi) and 52.21(b)(50)(i). See 77 FR 65107. The rulemaking removed the inadvertent requirement in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule that the measurement of condensable “particulate matter emissions” be included as part of the measurement and regulation of “particulate matter emissions.

    The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule (as well as the more general PM2.5 NAAQS implementation rule, the 2007 “Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule” (2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule) 4 ), was the subject of litigation before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA (hereafter, NRDC v. EPA).5 On January 4, 2013, the D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA both the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule and the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule. The court found that in both rules EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS solely pursuant to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title I of the CAA (subpart 1), rather than pursuant to the additional implementation provisions specific to particulate matter in subpart 4 of part D of title I (subpart 4).6 As a result, the D.C. Circuit remanded both rules and instructed EPA “to re-promulgate these rules pursuant to subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.” Although the D.C. Circuit declined to establish a deadline for EPA's response, EPA intends to respond promptly to the court's remand and to promulgate new generally applicable implementation regulations for the PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with the requirements of subpart 4. In the interim, however, states and EPA still need to proceed with implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in a timely and effective fashion in order to meet statutory obligations under the CAA and to assure the protection of public health intended by those NAAQS. In a June 2, 2014 final rulemaking entitled “Identification of Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS; Final Rule,” (79 FR 31566), EPA identified the classification status under subpart 4 for areas currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.7

    4 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007).

    5 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

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

    7 That June 2, 2014 rulemaking (79 FR 31566) also established a December 31, 2014 deadline for the submission of any additional attainment related SIP elements that may be needed to meet the applicable requirements of subpart 4.

    As the requirements of Subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment areas, EPA does not consider the portions of the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule that address requirements for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas to be affected by the NRDC v. EPA opinion. Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the need to revise any PSD permitting requirements promulgated in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule in order to comply with the D.C. Circuit's decision. This proposed rulemaking addresses West Virginia's PSD regulations. Thus, EPA has evaluated the regulations with applicable PSD requirements in the CAA, its implementing regulations, and the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule.

    The CAA's PSD provisions also establish maximum allowable increases over baseline concentrations—also known as “increments”—for certain pollutants. EPA has the task of promulgating regulations to prevent the significant deterioration of air quality that would result from the emissions of pollutants EPA began regulating after Congress enacted the PSD provisions in the CAA, which includes PM2.5. The PSD provisions establish preconstruction review and permitting of new or modified sources of air pollution. In 2007, EPA proposed a rule establishing increments for PM2.5 and also proposed two screening tools that would exempt permit applicants from some air quality analysis and monitoring required for PSD: Significant impact levels (SILs) and significant monitoring concentration (SMC). See 72 FR 54112 (September 21, 2007). In our October 20, 2010 final rule (the PM2.5 PSD Increments-SILs-SMC Rule), EPA set values for both SILs and SMC for PM2.5. See 75 FR 64864.

    The Sierra Club challenged EPA's authority to implement PM2.5 SILs and SMC for PSD purposes as promulgated in the PM2.5 PSD Increments-SILs-SMC Rule. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013). On January 22, 2013, the D.C. Circuit granted a request from EPA to vacate and remand to the Agency the portions of the PM2.5 PSD Increments-SILs-SMC Rule addressing the SILs for PM2.5 (found in paragraph (k)(2) in 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21), except for the parts codifying the PM2.5 SILs at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2), so that the EPA could voluntarily correct an error in the provisions. Id. at 463-66. The D.C. Circuit also vacated parts of the PSD Increments-SILs-SMC Rule establishing the PM2.5 SMC, finding that the Agency had exceeded its statutory authority with respect to these provisions. Id. at 469.

    In response to the D.C. Circuit's decision, EPA took final action on December 9, 2013 to remove the SIL provisions from the Federal PSD regulations in 40 CFR 52.21 and to revise the SMC for PM2.5 to zero micrograms per cubic meter. See 78 FR 73698. Because the D.C. Circuit vacated the SMC provisions in 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), EPA revised the existing concentration for the PM2.5 SMC listed in sections 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) to zero micrograms per cubic meter. EPA did not entirely remove PM2.5 as a listed pollutant in the SMC provisions because to do so might lead to the issuance of permits that contradict the holding of the D.C. Circuit as to the statutory monitoring requirements. Id. (providing EPA's explanation for including the zero micrograms per cubic meter SMC).

    On May 9, 2013, EPA had disapproved a narrow portion of a SIP revision submitted by the State of West Virginia on August 31, 2011 for revising West Virginia's PSD requirements in 45 CSR14 because the submittal did not satisfy the Federal requirement for inclusion of condensable emissions of PM (condensables) within the definition of “regulated new source review (NSR) pollutant” (at 45CSR14 section 2.66) for PM2.5 and PM emissions less than or equal to ten micrometers in diameter (PM10).8

    8See 78 FR 27062 (May 9, 2013). The limited disapproval of the narrow portion of the August 31, 2011 SIP provision (concerning 45CSR14 section 2.66) is discussed in 78 FR 27062 and in 40 CFR 52.2522(j)(1) specifically.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis A. Summary of SIP Revision

    Specifically, the revisions submitted by WVDEP on July 1, 2014 and June 6, 2012 involve amendments to 45CSR14 (Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration) based on the Federal regulatory actions discussed above in section I. A summary of the changes made in the 2012 and 2014 submittals are available in the docket in a document titled, “Summary of West Virginia NSR Changes.” Generally, the revisions in the 2012 submittal were submitted to incorporate provisions related to the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule. The 2014 submittal revises certain subdivisions of the 2012 submittal as shown in the table below:

    Rule 45CSR14 subdivision Description of change 2.66.a.1 Added PM condensable emissions to definition of “regulated NSR pollutant”. 2.66.a.2 Added language identifying precursors to NAAQS pollutants to the definition of “regulated NSR pollutant”. 16.7.c Deleted 24-hour de minimis air quality impact concentration value for PM2.5 (aka SMC for PM2.5). 16.1.a & b Added provision exempting requirements of 9.1 for stationary sources based on completeness date of permit applications. 9.2 Significant Impact Levels. Deleted this provision in its entirety.

    In general, the 2014 submittal adds PM condensable emissions to the definition of “regulated NSR pollutant” and deletes SILs and SMC for PM2.5 in the 45CSR14 provisions submitted for SIP approval.

    B. EPA Analysis

    EPA finds the revisions to 45CSR14 contained in the 2012 submittal and the 2014 submittal which were submitted by WVDEP for approval mirror the PSD requirements of the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule with certain exceptions described in the next paragraph. The 2014 submittal addresses and corrects the deficiency identified in EPA's May 9, 2013 disapproval (78 FR 27062) by adding language to the provision at 45CSR14 section 2.66.a.1 which now includes PM condensable emissions in the definition of “regulated NSR pollutant.” Thus, EPA finds West Virginia has addressed the deficiency noted in our limited disapproval in 78 FR 27062.

    However, while the 2014 submittal appropriately removes SILs for PM2.5 consistent with the D.C. Circuit's Sierra Club v. EPA decision and our final December 9, 2013 rulemaking (78 FR 73698), West Virginia's PSD provision at 45CSR14-16.7.c (included in the 2014 submittal) does not include a SMC value of zero micrograms per cubic meter for PM2.5 consistent with the D.C. Circuit's Sierra Club v. EPA decision and our December 9, 2013 rulemaking (78 FR 73698) which addressed the D.C. Circuit's vacature of the SMC provisions in 40 CFR parts 51 and 52 for PM2.5. Therefore, West Virginia's PSD regulation, 45CSR14, does not fully meet the requirements for PSD programs as set forth in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule, the D.C. Circuit's decision on SILs and SMC in Sierra Club v. EPA, and in EPA's December 9, 2013 rulemaking addressing that decision for SILs and SMC.

    However, on January 20, 2015, West Virginia committed to submitting an additional SIP revision with a revised PSD regulation at 45CSR14-16.7.c which will incorporate a SMC value of zero micrograms per cubic meter for PM2.5 to address this discrepancy. West Virginia committed to submitting this SIP revision no later than one year following the effective date of the final rulemaking notice for conditional approval of the 2012 and the 2014 submittals so that EPA can conditionally approve the 2012 and 2014 submittals.9 See CAA section 110(k)(4). With the exception of the absence of the SMC value of zero micrograms per cubic meter for PM2.5 which WVDEP has committed to address, EPA finds the 2012 and 2014 submittals meet applicable requirements for a PSD permitting program in the CAA, its implementing regulations, and the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule. The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. Any comments submitted in a timely manner will be considered before taking final action.

    9 West Virginia's letter from the Secretary of WVDEP committing to submit a revised provision in 45CSR14 to address the SMC for PM2.5 is available in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0028) and available online at www.regulations.gov.

    III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing conditional approval of these West Virginia SIP revisions, the 2012 and 2014 submittals, because West Virginia is committing to submit an additional SIP revision addressing the deficiency identified by EPA regarding the deletion of the PM2.5 SMC within one year of the date of EPA's final conditional approval and because the submittals otherwise meet CAA requirements as discussed in this proposed rulemaking. Once EPA has determined that West Virginia has satisfied this condition, the conditional approval of the 2012 and 2014 submittals will become a full approval. Should West Virginia fail to meet the condition specified above, the conditional approval of the 2012 and 2014 submittals will convert to a disapproval pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(4).

    The full or partial disapproval of a SIP revision triggers the requirement under CAA section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) no later than two years from the date of the disapproval unless the State corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or plan revision before the Administrator promulgates such FIP. EPA has determined that West Virginia's 2014 submittal has rectified the deficiency regarding including condensables in the definition of regulated NSR pollutant noted in our limited disapproval in 78 FR 27062. Therefore, upon final approval of the 2014 submittal, the EPA is no longer required to promulgate a FIP to address the issue of PM condensables in the definition of regulated NSR pollutant for West Virginia's PSD permit program, and our narrow disapproval of the August 31, 2011 PSD SIP (for failure to include condensables in definition of regulated NSR pollutant) will become a full approval. However, EPA is proposing conditional approval for the 2012 and 2014 submittals due to West Virginia's lack of a PM2.5 SMC with the value of zero micrograms per cubic meter.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the WV regulations at 45CSR14 regarding the Prevention of Significant deterioration permitting requirements as discussed in section III of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.com and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 12, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07222 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    80 60 Monday, March 30, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2014-0013] Notice of Determination of the African Horse Sickness Status of Saudi Arabia AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    We are advising the public of our determination that Saudi Arabia is free of African horse sickness (AHS). Based on our evaluation of the animal health status of Saudi Arabia, which we made available to the public for review and comment through a previous notice, the Administrator has determined that AHS is not present in Saudi Arabia and that the importation of horses, mules, zebras, and other equids from Saudi Arabia presents a low risk of introducing AHS into the United States.

    DATES:

    Effective March 30, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Chip Wells, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Regionalization Evaluation Services, Sanitary Trade Issues Team, National Import Export Services, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-3300.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The regulations in 9 CFR part 93 (referred to below as the regulations) prescribe the conditions for the importation into the United States of specified animals to prevent the introduction of various animal diseases, including African horse sickness (AHS). AHS is a fatal viral equine disease that is not known to exist in the United States.

    Within part 93, § 93.308 contains requirements governing the importation of horses, mules, zebras, and other equids from regions where AHS exists in order to prevent the introduction of AHS into the United States. Equids from countries where AHS exists are eligible for importation into the United States only after undergoing a 60-day quarantine.

    The regulations in 9 CFR part 92, § 92.2 (hereafter referred to as the “regulations”), contain requirements for requesting the recognition of the animal health status of a region or for the approval of the export of a particular type of animal or animal product to the United States from a foreign region. If, after review and evaluation of the information submitted in support of the request the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) believes the request can be safely granted, APHIS will make its evaluation available for public comment through a notice published in the Federal Register. Following the close of the comment period, APHIS will review all comments received and will make a final determination regarding the request that will be detailed in another notice published in the Federal Register.

    On June 12, 2014, we published in the Federal Register (79 FR 33714-33715, Docket No. APHIS-2014-0013) a notice 1 in which we announced the availability for review and comment of our evaluation of the animal health status of Saudi Arabia relative to AHS. In that document, titled “APHIS Evaluation of the African Horse Sickness (AHS) Status of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” (November 2013), we presented the results of our evaluation of the risk of introducing AHS into the United States via the importation of equids from Saudi Arabia.

    1 To view the notice, the assessment, and the comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0013.

    We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending on August 11, 2014. We received 11 comments by that date, from industry groups and State departments of agriculture. The comments we received are discussed below by topic.

    Disease Status

    The majority of commenters expressed concern regarding APHIS' recognition of Saudi Arabia as free of AHS because the World Organization of Animal Health (OIE) does not currently recognize Saudi Arabia as free of AHS. Two commenters asked whether Saudi Arabia has petitioned OIE to be recognized as free of AHS.

    APHIS evaluations of animal disease status of countries are conducted independently of OIE evaluations in accordance with OIE standards for importing countries. Upon request by the Government of Saudi Arabia, APHIS conducted an import risk assessment using the guidelines established in the regulations. As a result of that assessment, APHIS concluded that Saudi Arabia is free of AHS.

    OIE only recently (May 2014) began official recognition of the AHS status of regions in the world. Countries must formally request OIE recognition and submit a dossier of supporting information. APHIS' evaluation of Saudi Arabia was completed prior to May 2014 when OIE first published its list of regions recognized as AHS-free. APHIS has been informed by Saudi Arabian Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) officials that Saudi Arabia intends within the next few months to submit documentation to OIE requesting AHS-free recognition.

    Several commenters expressed concern regarding the adequacy of the research leading to our conclusion that Saudi Arabia is free of AHS. Four commenters noted that the information used to support that conclusion was provided by Saudi Arabia.

    APHIS evaluates the best available information in accordance with our regulations and with international standards set by the OIE under chapter 2.1 of their Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Often the best and only information available is supplied by the requesting country, although, whenever possible, APHIS considers third party information that is reliable and in accord with current scientific thinking. This practice is consistent with United States Government obligations under applicable international treaties governing trade.

    One commenter was concerned that AHS has previously been present within Saudi Arabia.

    The last case of AHS in Saudi Arabia was in 1989 and no further outbreaks have been reported since that time. The international standard for AHS-freedom set by OIE is 2 years without an outbreak. Saudi Arabia exceeds this time standard by more than 23 years. Furthermore, multiple surveillance studies since 1992 have not demonstrated the presence of AHS virus in the country. Saudi Arabian law requires mandatory notification of AHS virus throughout the country and AHS vaccination is prohibited. Based on these and other factors described in the risk assessment, APHIS has concluded that Saudi Arabia is free of AHS.

    Surveillance and Control Measures

    Many commenters stated that they had no confidence in Saudi Arabia's surveillance and control measures for AHS given its limited number of veterinarians and/or clinics in relation to the country's size or the size of its equid population. Two commenters expressed concern whether veterinarians in Saudi Arabia are qualified to diagnose cases of AHS.

    APHIS evaluated the veterinary infrastructure of Saudi Arabia and concluded that it has a sufficient number of competent veterinarians to effectively manage its import/export surveillance and AHS disease control responsibilities. Saudi Arabia is roughly one fifth the size of the United States. However, most of the country is uninhabited desert. Therefore, its horse population is concentrated in several small areas, particularly the cities of Taif and Riyadh where most major equestrian events and races occur. In addition, the horse population of Saudi Arabia is estimated to be 16,500, which is relatively small in comparison to the estimated 9 million horses in the United States.

    Saudi Arabia's MOA has an office within each of Saudi Arabia's 13 provinces, as well as over 190 branch offices and veterinary clinics in local communities throughout the kingdom. A total of 389 veterinarians and 210 veterinary assistants work under the MOA. These branch offices provide veterinary services for treatment of farm and pet animals in addition to official animal health control measures such as vaccination, sampling, and agriculture extension work. The Ministry also operates 39 mobile veterinary clinics out of the provincial or branch offices throughout the kingdom. There are also 80 private veterinary clinics in the kingdom.

    There are two veterinary colleges in Saudi Arabia: King Faisal University in Al-Hofouf and King Saud University in Al Qassim. APHIS reviewed documentation of the AHS training program offered by the MOA to Saudi Arabian veterinarians in cooperation with these colleges and concluded that the content was comparable to training offered in the United States and is taught by well-qualified, internationally credentialed veterinary school faculty.

    Several commenters expressed concern that the methodology behind AHS surveillance in Saudi Arabia was not explained in more detail and suggested that more surveillance be conducted. Two commenters stated that, although our evaluation cites the sampling of 750 horses and donkeys between 1997 and 2009, it fails to explain how animals were chosen for sampling or how the survey was conducted.

    The MOA conducted six AHS surveillance surveys between 1997 and 2009. Surveys were conducted in 1997, 1999, 2001-2002, 2005, 2008, and 2009. APHIS evaluated the surveillance data and summarized their results in our evaluation. Several commenters incorrectly stated that 750 samples were collected during the period of 1997-2009. As mentioned in our evaluation of the animal health status of Saudi Arabia relative to AHS, a total of 750 animals (460 donkeys and 290 horses) in Saudi Arabia, out of an approximate population of 13,000, were sampled in 1997 alone. That number was chosen to provide 99 percent confidence of detecting AHS infection at a prevalence level of 1 percent. Samples were randomly selected with no more than five samples collected in any single stable or village and were collected in all regions of the country. However, a greater emphasis was placed on targeting samples, especially in donkeys, in the southwestern AHS control zone. Donkeys were targeted for increased sampling since that species would have an increased likelihood of subclinical infection and their population was higher in the AHS control zone. The AHS control zone is a region in the southwestern portion of Saudi Arabia bordering Yemen that acts as a buffer to separate the area where reintroduction of AHS would most likely occur. No equids from the control zone are allowed entry into the rest of Saudi Arabia and no equids from Yemen are allowed into Saudi Arabia. Test results indicated that no active AHS infection was present in the sampled animals.

    Subsequent surveys collected additional samples in both nationwide and regionally targeted surveys. In 1999, the MOA conducted a smaller nationwide AHS statistical survey as a follow-up to the 1997 survey. In that survey, 250 samples were randomly collected from all regions of the country. The 2001-2002 survey collected 324 samples and targeted both animals in the AHS control zone and competition horses primarily stabled in the Riyadh area. The 2005 survey, which tested 79 samples, was conducted only in the southwest AHS control zone. The 2008 and 2009 surveys, both of which also focused on animals in the AHS control zone, collected 167 and 125 samples respectively. None of the surveys found evidence of viral activity. Animals that showed low level titers on the initial screening were retested after 30 and 60 days and titers were found to be either stable, decreased, or absent. Therefore, APHIS concluded that the surveys were statistically valid and sufficiently demonstrated AHS freedom.

    In addition to these surveys, active surveillance data was collected from the pre-export testing of horses leaving Saudi Arabia. A total of 4,055 horses tested negative for AHS before being exported from Saudi Arabia between 1999 and 2011. All imported equids must test negative for AHS before being admitted into the country.

    Two commenters expressed concern regarding Saudi Arabia's lack of a written emergency response plan to deal with a potential AHS outbreak. The commenters asked how, without a written emergency response plan, MOA can ensure that passive surveillance is done correctly and adheres to all MOA rules and regulations. The commenters further asked how MOA can maintain that Saudi Arabia is AHS free when horses could show clinical signs of AHS and be euthanized and buried without the MOA ever knowing about it.

    As mentioned in the risk assessment, APHIS recommended to the MOA that Saudi Arabia would benefit by having a written AHS emergency response plan, along with periodic training and scenario exercises to simulate its implementation even though AHS virus has been absent in the country for a quarter century. APHIS believes that a written emergency plan would enhance Saudi Arabia's ability to quickly respond in the event of reintroduction of AHS. A quick response to detect, contain, and eradicate any AHS reintroduction would minimize disruption of trade. However, APHIS concludes that the lack of a written response plan does not preclude removal of Saudi Arabia from the list of regions APHIS considers affected with AHS. Reoccurrence of AHS in the country would result in suspension of equine trade. Resumption of trade would be dependent on subsequent control and eradication. APHIS believes that if the MOA has a written AHS emergency response plan then the length of time needed for this process would be minimized.

    Compulsory notification of AHS suspicion and an effective veterinary infrastructure are necessary components of an AHS passive surveillance system. Saudi Arabian law requires notification of AHS suspicion. Based on observations cited in our evaluation, APHIS concludes that the MOA is an effective central veterinary authority and provides veterinary services at the regional and local levels. Specifically, APHIS cites MOA's strategy of directly providing veterinary services though government operated veterinary clinics. The MOA employs a total of 389 veterinarians and 210 veterinary assistants and operates 39 mobile veterinary clinics. APHIS believes this practice encourages horse owners to call and report suspicious signs and symptoms of illness to ministry officials. In addition to the MOA veterinary clinics, there are 80 private veterinary clinics operating in Saudi Arabia. Similar to the United States, professional ethics and standards encourage compliance with the notification requirement for AHS suspicion.

    While it is possible that AHS-infected horses could be euthanized and buried without being reported to the MOA, this possibility exists for any country in the world and APHIS believes it to be an unlikely scenario. Reintroduction of AHS into Saudi Arabia would likely result in multiple cases with high mortality, an event that would be difficult to keep hidden. Because vaccination has been illegal for over 11 years, Saudi Arabia now has a large number of AHS-susceptible equids. These animals functionally serve as sentinels for the disease. APHIS believes the number of unvaccinated equids is sufficiently high that AHS would be observed if it were present.

    Border Controls

    Many commenters expressed their belief that Saudi Arabia's borders are “porous.” The commenters expressed concerns that equids, including feral horses and donkeys, could enter Saudi Arabia from neighboring countries such as Oman and Yemen that are not free of AHS and subsequently enter the United States without being subject to the 60-day quarantine or potentially infect other equids that could enter the United States without being subject to the 60-day quarantine. Two commenters asked for evidence that MOA has conducted active surveillance of the country's feral population of non-horse equids to establish their freedom from evidence of AHS.

    APHIS evaluated Saudi Arabia's border controls, including those along its southern border with Yemen and Oman where illegal entry of equids could pose a pathway for AHS introduction. APHIS recognizes the potential for illegal smuggling along many international borders where land crossing is possible. However, the extremely harsh desert along Saudi Arabia's border with Oman and much of Yemen provides a natural barrier that is considered to be sufficient to prevent the illegal entry of equids into Saudi Arabia. In addition, Saudi Arabia's southwest border with Yemen is very mountainous and contains a very limited number of potential routes for horses and donkeys to cross into Saudi Arabia. These mountain passes are regularly patrolled by Saudi Arabia's Al-Mujahedeen (border guards). APHIS considers the potential of being caught by these border patrols and the resultant consequences to be sufficient to deter the illegal smuggling of horses and donkeys into the southwestern region of Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, as stated previously, this southwest region is included in the AHS control zone from which movement of equids to the remainder of Saudi Arabia, as well as to any third country, is prohibited. Thus the AHS control zone provides a second layer of movement controls. Saudi Arabia lacks feral equid populations. Therefore, surveillance of these populations is not necessary or possible. In addition, as stated previously, all equids must test negative for AHS before being imported into Saudi Arabia. For these reasons, APHIS considers the illegal movement of horses from Oman and Yemen to the United States via Saudi Arabia extremely unlikely.

    As mentioned in our evaluation, the MOA operates a border inspection post on King Fahad's causeway, which connects Saudi Arabia with Bahrain. That causeway is the only land crossing between the two countries. Two commenters expressed concern regarding oversight of the diplomatic lane on the causeway that is reserved for use by royal families and high government officials, citing the illegal movement of eight horses from Bahrain through this lane. The commenters asked how long the horses were in Saudi Arabia before it was determined they were imported illegally, how many other horses they came into contact with, and whether the incident led to greater oversight or a change in regulations regarding the diplomatic lane.

    All horses, regardless of consignee, entering Saudi Arabia are required to have an import permit and are required to stop at the border inspection station for document review and inspection. At the time of the cited incident, Saudi Arabia prohibited the importation of equids from Bahrain due to an outbreak of glanders in that country. Despite these movement restrictions, individuals illegally moved eight horses into Saudi Arabia by taking advantage of diplomatic courtesies. However, secondary safeguards that regulate and control animal identification and internal movement resulted in prompt detection and seizure of these eight horses within 1 day, upon arrival at their intended destination in the Riyadh area. Lacking proper documentation of border inspection, these animals were promptly seized and quarantined before having contact with any other horses. MOA officials indicated that the Government of Saudi Arabia has been in discussions with the Government of Bahrain regarding the misuse of the diplomatic lanes. APHIS considers this quick response to be evidence of the efficacy of Saudi Arabia's animal movement controls and gives us confidence in Saudi Arabia's commitment and ability to enforce its import regulations.

    Vectors

    Many commenters expressed concern regarding the possibility of AHS being introduced into Saudi Arabia via wind-borne insect vectors from regions where AHS is present. Two commenters asked how APHIS can consider the desert along Saudi Arabia's southern border an effective natural barrier against the introduction of AHS when AHS vectors can cross the Bab el-Mandeb, a 20 mile wide strait separating Djibouti and Yemen.

    APHIS acknowledges the presence of competent AHS vectors in Saudi Arabia. However despite their presence, surveillance over an extended period of time has not detected the presence of the AHS virus in the country. Although theoretically plausible, the introduction of AHS into Saudi Arabia from endemic areas of Africa via windblown virus-infected vectors has never been documented. The southwestern corner of Saudi Arabia is approximately 160 miles from Eritrea. Furthermore, the southwestern coastal region of Saudi Arabia is separated from the remainder of the country by a mountain range that is sufficiently high to be considered a natural barrier for spread of the insect vectors capable of transmitting the AHS virus. As described in our evaluation, this region is incorporated into Saudi Arabia's AHS control zone from which equine movement to the remainder of the country is prohibited and is an area of intensified AHS surveillance. APHIS considers surveillance conducted in this region reasonable to detect potential AHS reintroduction. The remainder of Saudi Arabia's southern border with Yemen and Oman is also protected by a natural barrier. The Rub al Khali, or “Empty Quarter,” is a vast uninhabited desert where conditions are inhospitable for life.

    Historical incursions of AHS have been associated with the movement of infected horses. Because the focus of the evaluation was on Saudi Arabia, APHIS did not mention, but does consider, Bab el Mandeb to be a natural barrier for equid movements between Djibouti and Yemen. While APHIS considers Djibouti, as well as most of the African continent, to be AHS-affected, Djibouti has never reported outbreaks of AHS to the OIE. AHS is endemic in central and southern Africa and periodically spreads to northern Africa and countries around the Mediterranean. Saudi Arabia is separated from Africa by the Red Sea, which also serves as a natural barrier for equid movement. Equine movement restrictions and the natural barrier of the mountains and desert significantly reduce the risk of spreading AHS virus into other areas of the country.

    Benefits and Impacts

    Several commenters noted that only eight horses were imported into the United States from Saudi Arabia between 1999 and 2011. Given the low number of horse imports, the commenters questioned the benefit of increased trade with Saudi Arabia relative to the potential risk.

    APHIS believes that the low number of imports reflects the trade barrier created by the current 60-day quarantine requirement. We assessed the risk and found no scientific basis justifying the continued listing of Saudi Arabia as a region affected by AHS. Therefore, in accordance with United States obligations under the OIE's Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement, APHIS is taking the action to remove Saudi Arabia from this list. As a result of this action, APHIS estimates the most likely effect will be an increase in the temporary movement of horses between Saudi Arabia and the United States for racing, competitions, and breeding. The current 60-day arrival quarantine required for horses entering the United States from Saudi Arabia is costly to horse owners (including U.S. owners) and creates hardships for maintaining the conditioning of competitive animals and care of breeding mares with foals. Horses currently move in and out of Saudi Arabia to the European Union and Arabian Gulf States for racing, competition, and breeding. Saudi horse owners have expressed the desire to compete in races and other equestrian competitions in the United States, as well as transport horses for breeding, but are inhibited by the cost and limitations of the current quarantine. APHIS cannot estimate with certainty the number of horse movements to and from Saudi Arabia that will result from this action. However, we believe the number to be relatively low.

    Budget

    Table 1 in our evaluation shows the total budget for MOA's Animal and Plant Quarantine Department from 2011 to 2014. Saudi Arabia's animal disease control activities, including for AHS, are reflected in that budget. Two commenters noted that the budget for the Animal and Plant Quarantine Department increased by $4,571,259 since 2011 and asked how APHIS can be certain that the increase went to fund AHS control and surveillance activities. The commenters also asked what Saudi Arabia's Animal and Plant Quarantine Department's budget was in 2009 and 2010.

    The budget figures cited in Table 1 of the evaluation reflect the total budget for MOA's Animal and Plant Quarantine Department. Each of those three annual budgets includes a line item of $3,999,465 specifically earmarked as a contingency fund to respond to any foreign animal disease (FAD) emergency, including AHS. In addition, MOA officials have the option to request supplemental funding if emergency response costs exceed the appropriated contingency funds. The increase in the budgets over the 3 years reflects increases in the appropriations for veterinary personnel. Our evaluation reviewed the budgets for the 3 most current years and we believe that was sufficient to determine Saudi Arabia's ability to respond to an outbreak of AHS.

    Impacts

    Many commenters expressed concern regarding the potential impacts to the U.S. horse industry if AHS were to enter the United States, including job losses, high mortality, and the potential destruction of the horse industry. Several commenters questioned whether APHIS has the resources to deal with a potential AHS outbreak in the United States.

    While APHIS agrees that the consequences of an AHS introduction into the United States could be severe, we do not believe that an outbreak would result in the catastrophic consequences the commenters describe. Such catastrophic consequences would be more likely associated with a highly contagious disease or one that spreads widely before detection. As stated in our evaluation, AHS is an infectious, but non-contagious, insect-transmitted, viral disease with high mortality in horses and mules. Recent history indicates that AHS outbreaks in other countries have not resulted in widespread infection, including the 1989 outbreak in Saudi Arabia which was limited to affecting three horses. Disease controls currently available, such as diagnostic capabilities, vector controls, and vaccination, likely contribute to limiting the spread of AHS outbreaks. APHIS believes that an introduction of AHS into the United States would be quickly detected, contained, and eradicated. In the evaluation, APHIS considered the consequences of an AHS introduction along with the exposure and release risks and concluded the overall risk of introducing AHS into the United States via the importation of horses from Saudi Arabia to be very low.

    APHIS has resources and is prepared to respond to potential FAD outbreaks, including outbreaks of AHS. APHIS has established the Foreign Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Plan (FAD PReP) to provide a framework for FAD preparedness and response. This document provides the response strategies, zone and premises designations, and critical activities for controlling, containing, and eradicating an FAD. It is available on our Web site at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/emergency_management/downloads/documents_manuals/fadprep_manual_2.pdf. A companion document, the APHIS Foreign Animal Disease Framework: Roles and Coordination, provides an overview of FAD PReP, Federal roles, APHIS authorities and funding process, incident management, and communication strategy. This document is available at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/emergency_management/downloads/documents_manuals/fadprep_manual_1.pdf. Additional APHIS FAD emergency management documents may be found at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/portal/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth?1dmy&urile=wcm%3apath%3a%2Faphis_content_library%2Fsa_our_focus%2Fsa_animal_health%2Fsa_emergency_management%2Fct_fadprep.

    Our evaluation cites the statistic that the mortality rate for horses infected with AHS is 70 to 95 percent. Two commenters asked how APHIS can be sure of these numbers.

    The numbers cited come from the consensus of global scientific knowledge regarding the mortality rates described in our evaluation. Specifically, the mortality rate for horses infected with AHS was taken from the OIE Web site (http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Animal_Health_in_the_World/docs/pdf/Disease_cards/AFRICAN_HORSE_SICKNESS.pdf) and the Iowa State University: The Center for Food Security & Public Health Web site (http://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/Factsheets/pdfs/african_horse_sickness.pdf).

    Compensation

    Two commenters asked whether APHIS would be able to provide compensation for horses that may need to be euthanized for AHS.

    APHIS has the authority to provide indemnity in the case of an FAD outbreak. In the event of an FAD outbreak such as AHS, APHIS may consider indemnity funding. Specific decisions regarding indemnity would depend on the situation and available funding sources.

    Based on the evaluation and the reasons given in this document in response to comments, we are recognizing Saudi Arabia as free of AHS and removing it from the list of regions considered affected with AHS which is found on the APHIS Web site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/portal/aphis/ourfocus/importexport and following the link to “Animal or Animal Product.” Copies of the list are also available via postal mail, fax, or email from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 24th day of March 2015. Jere L. Dick, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07212 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2014-0008] Notice of Decision To Authorize the Importation of Fresh Figs From Mexico Into the Continental United States AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    We are advising the public of our decision to authorize the importation of fresh figs from Mexico into the continental United States. Based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, which we made available to the public to review and comment through a previous notice, we have concluded that the application of one or more designated phytosanitary measures will be sufficient to mitigate the risks of introducing or disseminating plant pests or noxious weeds via the importation of fresh figs from Mexico.

    DATES:

    Effective March 30, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. George Apgar Balady, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2240.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-71, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into or disseminated within the United States.

    Section 319.56-4 contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely imported subject to one or more of the designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph (b) of that section.

    In accordance with that process, we published a notice 1 in the Federal Register on June 12, 2014 (79 FR 33716-33717, Docket No. APHIS-2014-0008), in which we announced the availability, for review and comment, of a pest list and risk management document (RMD) regarding the risks associated with the importation into the continental United States of fresh figs from Mexico.

    1 To view the notice, pest list, RMD, and comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0008.

    We solicited comments on the pest list and RMD for 60 days, ending on August 11, 2014. We received three comments by that date, from an exporter, an organization of State plant regulatory agencies, and a State department of agriculture. The comments are discussed below.

    The pest list identified six quarantine pests that are likely to follow the pathway of fresh figs imported from Mexico into the continental United States: Anastrepha fraterculus, A. ludens, A. serpentina, Ceratitis capitata, Maconellicoccus hirsutus, and Nipaecoccus viridis.

    Two commenters acknowledged that the mitigation measures described in the RMD would likely be enough to mitigate the risks of all six quarantine pests, but requested that figs from Mexico not be distributed in Florida due to the risk of an accidental or incidental introduction of quarantine pests into the State.

    As described in the RMD, we are requiring figs from Mexico to be treated with irradiation to neutralize all plant pests of the class Insecta. Section 305.9 specifies the requirements for the irradiation of imported commodities. These requirements provide effective safeguards for articles irradiated either prior to or after arrival in the United States. In addition, each consignment is subject to inspection at the U.S. ports of entry and must be found free of all quarantine pests. We are confident that these requirements will adequately mitigate the risks associated with the importation of fresh figs from Mexico.

    One commenter asked what phytosanitary measures would apply to figs exported from fruit fly-free areas of Mexico and whether those treatments will negate the figs' organic status.

    Under § 319.56-5, certain fruits and vegetables may be imported into the United States provided that the fruits or vegetables originate from an area that is free of a specific pest or pests. As such, figs produced in fruit fly-free areas of Mexico would be eligible for importation into the United States without treatment for fruit flies. However, the figs would be subject to the labeling, certification, and safeguarding requirements of § 319.56-5(e), the general requirements in § 319.56-3, and would have to be inspected and found free of M. hirsutus and N. viridis.

    Therefore, in accordance with § 319.56-4(c)(2)(ii), we are announcing our decision to authorize the importation of fresh figs from Mexico into the continental United States subject to the following phytosanitary measures:

    • The figs may be imported into the continental United States in commercial consignments only.

    • The figs must be irradiated in accordance with 7 CFR part 305 with a minimum absorbed dose of 150 Gy.

    • If irradiation treatment is applied outside the United States, each consignment of fruit must be jointly inspected by APHIS and the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Mexico and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate (PC) attesting that the fruit received the required irradiation treatment. The PC must also include an additional declaration stating that the consignment was inspected and found free of M. hirsutus and N. viridis.

    • If irradiation treatment is applied upon arrival in the United States, each consignment of fruit must be inspected by the NPPO of Mexico prior to departure and accompanied by a PC attesting that the fruit was inspected and found free of M. hirsutus and N. viridis.

    • The commodity is subject to inspection at the U.S. port of entry.

    These conditions will be listed in the Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements database (available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/favir). In addition to these specific measures, figs from Mexico will be subject to the general requirements listed in § 319.56-3 that are applicable to the importation of all fruits and vegetables.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of March 2015. Michael C. Gregoire, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07231 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2013-0047] U.S. Department of Agriculture Stakeholder Workshop on Coexistence ACTION:

    Notice; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We are extending the comment period for issues and proposals discussed during the workshop on agricultural coexistence that was held on March 12-13, 2015. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the notice published on February 3, 2015 (80 FR 5729) is extended. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0047.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2013-0047, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Any comments we receive may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0047 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:

    Mr. Michael Tadle, Program Analyst, Planning, Evaluation, and Decision Support, PPD, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 120, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3140; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On February 3, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 5729-5731, Docket No. APHIS-2013-0047) a notice 1 to announce that the U.S. Department of Agriculture was holding a workshop on agricultural coexistence, the objective of which was to advance an understanding of agricultural coexistence and discuss how to make coexistence achievable for all stakeholders. The 2-day workshop, which was held on March 12-13, 2015, also provided an opportunity to learn from stakeholders representing a wide range of interests with respect to agricultural coexistence.

    1 To view the workshop notice and comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0047.

    In that notice, we stated that comments on issues and proposals discussed during the workshop would be accepted from March 13, 2015, through March 27, 2015. We are extending the comment period on Docket No. APHIS-2013-0047 for an additional 14 days to April 10, 2015. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of March 2015. Michael C. Gregoire, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07210 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0018] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Small Lots of Seed AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    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 an extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of small lots of seed into the United States.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0018.

    • Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0018, 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-2015-0018 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 small lots of seed into the United States, contact Ms. Lydia Colón, Regulatory Policy Specialist, PPP, RPM, PHP, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2302. 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 Small Lots of Seed.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0285.

    Type of Request: Extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (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. The regulations contained in “Subpart—Plants for Planting” (7 CFR 319.37-1 through 319.37-14) prohibit or restrict, among other things, the importation of living plants, plant parts, and seed for propagation.

    These regulations allow small lots of seed to be imported into the United States under an import permit with specific conditions, including seed packet labeling, as an alternative to a phytosanitary certificate requirement.

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities 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 0.0356 hours per response.

    Respondents: Importers, horticultural societies, arboreta, and small businesses.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 400.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 26.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 10,400.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 370 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 24th day of March 2015. Jere L. Dick, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07224 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2011-0077] Notice of Decision To Authorize the Importation of Fresh Tejocote Fruit From Mexico Into the Continental United States AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    We are advising the public of our decision to authorize the importation into the continental United States of fresh tejocote fruit from Mexico. Based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, which we made available to the public for review and comment through a previous notice, we have determined that the application of one or more designated phytosanitary measures will be sufficient to mitigate the risks of introducing or disseminating plant pests or noxious weeds via the importation of fresh tejocote fruit from Mexico.

    DATES:

    Effective March 30, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. David B. Lamb, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, PHP, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2103.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-71, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States.

    Section 319.56-4 of the regulations contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis (PRA), can be safely imported subject to one or more of the designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph (b) of that section. Under that process, APHIS publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the PRA that evaluates the risks associated with the importation of a particular fruit or vegetable. Following the close of the 60-day comment period, APHIS may begin issuing permits for importation of the fruit or vegetable subject to the identified designated measures if: (1) No comments were received on the PRA; (2) the comments on the PRA revealed that no changes to the PRA were necessary; or (3) changes to the PRA were made in response to public comments, but the changes did not affect the overall conclusions of the analysis and the Administrator's determination of risk.

    In accordance with that process, we published a notice 1 in the Federal Register on September 29, 2011 (76 FR 60449-60450, Docket No. APHIS-2011-0077), in which we announced the availability, for review and comment, of a PRA that evaluated the risks associated with the importation into the continental United States of fresh tejocote fruit (Crataegus pubescens) from Mexico. The PRA consisted of a risk assessment identifying pests of quarantine significance that could follow the pathway of importation of fresh tejocote fruit from Mexico into the continental United States and a risk management document identifying phytosanitary measures to be applied to that commodity to mitigate the pest risk. We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending on November 28, 2011. We received five comments by that date. They were from a State agricultural official, a foreign national plant protection organization (NPPO), two domestic tejocote growers, and a domestic fruit and vegetable distributor. Four of these commenters opposed the importation of fresh tejocote fruit from Mexico into the United States.

    1 To view the notice, the PRA, and the comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0077.

    Two commenters expressed a general concern about the phytosanitary risk of importing tejocote fruit from Mexico but did not mention a specific pest.

    The PRA did not identify any pests of quarantine significance as following the pathway of commercial shipments of tejocote from Mexico into the United States. We concluded that the required phytosanitary measures listed in the PRA will result in the effective removal of any potential quarantine pests associated with the importation of tejocote from Mexico.

    Another commenter opposed the importation of fresh tejocote fruit from Mexico on grounds that it has been demonstrated to be a host for Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata), or Medfly. The commenter stated that the Mexican State of Chiapas has had recurring outbreaks of Medfly and requested that imports of fresh tejocote fruit from Mexico not be permitted into the commenter's State until the shipping protocol described in the PRA has had sufficient time to demonstrate that Medfly outbreaks in Chiapas do not result in an introduction of Medfly into the United States. Another commenter opposed to the importation of tejocote fruit cited Web sites and unspecified articles and stated that they contain information about tejocote crop damage caused by fruit flies in parts of Mexico, including Chiapas, where tejocote is grown commercially.

    We were unable to find information about tejocote crop damage in Mexico on the Web sites listed by the commenter. APHIS recognizes Mexico as having eradicated Medfly, a determination that has been corroborated by CABI, an internationally recognized pest monitoring resource.2 While there have been occasional introductions of Medfly along the border between the Mexican State of Chiapas and Guatemala, APHIS has determined that no established populations of Medfly exist in any part of Mexico. Furthermore, APHIS operates the Moscamed program in cooperation with Guatemala and Mexico to detect and eradicate introductions into Mexico through surveillance trapping, fruit sampling, biological and mechanical controls, release of sterile Medflies, public education efforts, and the establishment of fruit fly-free areas. We have determined that the Moscamed program possesses the capability to detect, contain, and eradicate Medfly outbreaks within commercial tejocote growing areas of Mexico. If an outbreak of Medfly were to occur and APHIS determined that it posed an unacceptable phytosanitary risk to the United States, we would immediately prohibit the importation of fresh tejocote fruit from Mexico. This practice is consistent with actions we have taken toward imports of commodities from other countries considered free of certain quarantine pests when such pests appear in those countries and pose an unacceptable import risk to the United States.

    2 CABI Invasive Species Compendium 2015: http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/12367.

    The PRA identified three designated measures as necessary to ensure the safe importation of tejocote fruit from Mexico:

    • The tejocote fruit must be imported in commercial consignments only.

    • Each consignment of tejocote fruit must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Mexico stating the following: “Tejocote fruit in this consignment were inspected and are free of pests.”

    • Each shipment of tejocote fruit is subject to inspection upon arrival at port of entry to the United States.

    One commenter noted that the PRA identified no quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway of commercial consignments. As a result, the commenter suggested that port-of-entry inspection be the only required measure.

    APHIS has concluded that the measures indicated in the PRA are necessary to effectively mitigate the pest risk associated with fresh tejocote fruit imported from Mexico.

    Only commercial consignments of tejocote fruit will be allowed to be imported from Mexico for sale and distribution. Commercial consignments, as defined in § 319.56-2, are consignments that an inspector identifies as having been imported for sale and distribution. Produce grown commercially is less likely to be infested with plant pests than noncommercial consignments. Noncommercial consignments are more prone to infestations because the commodity is often ripe to overripe, could be of a variety with unknown susceptibility to pests, and is often grown with little or no pest control.

    Consignments of fresh tejocote fruit from Mexico will also be required to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate. The phytosanitary certificate provides additional assurance that the NPPO of Mexico has inspected the commodity and determined that it meets the requirements for importation into the United States and is free of pests.

    Three commenters opposed the importation of tejocote fruit from Mexico on grounds that U.S. growers could suffer economically as a result of competition with imported tejocote fruit.

    Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), we have the authority to prohibit or restrict the importation of plants and plant products only when necessary to prevent the introduction into or dissemination of plant pests or noxious weeds within the United States. We do not have the authority to restrict imports solely on the grounds of potential economic effects on domestic entities that could result from increased imports.

    Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in § 319.56-4(c)(2)(ii), we are announcing our decision to authorize the importation into the continental United States of fresh tejocote fruit from Mexico subject to the following phytosanitary measures:

    • The tejocote fruit must be imported in commercial consignments only.

    • Each consignment of tejocote fruit must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Mexico stating the following: “Tejocote fruit in this consignment were inspected and are free of pests.”

    • Each shipment of tejocote fruit is subject to inspection upon arrival at port of entry to the United States.

    These conditions will be listed in the Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements database (available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/favir). In addition to these specific measures, fresh tejocote fruit from Mexico will be subject to the general requirements listed in § 319.56-3 that are applicable to the importation of all fruits and vegetables.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of March 2015. Michael C. Gregoire, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07234 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request March 24, 2015.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if they are received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Food and Nutrition Service

    Title: The Integrity Program (TIP) Data Collection.

    OMB Control Number: 0584-0401.

    Summary of Collection: This is a request for extension, without revision, to an existing collection. The Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) Program regulations at 7 CFR 246.12(j)(5), requires State agencies to report annually on their vendor monitoring efforts. The data collected is used by States agencies as a management tool and at the national level to provide Congress, senior FNS officials, as well as the general public, assurances that every reasonable effort is being made to ensure integrity in the WIC Program.

    Need and Use of the Information: The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) will collect information using forms FNS 698, Profile of Integrity Practices and Procedures; FNS 699, the Integrity Profile Report Form; and FNS 700, TIP Data Entry Form. The collected information from the forms will be analyzed and a report is prepared by FNS annually that (1) assesses State agency progress in eliminating abusive vendors, (2) assesses the level of activity that is being directed to ensure program integrity, and (3) analyzes trends over a 5-year period. The information is used at the national level in formulating program policy and regulations. At the FNS regional office level, the data is reviewed to identify possible vendor management deficiencies so that technical assistance can be provided to States, as needed. Without the information, FNS would not have timely and accurate data needed to identify and correct State agency vendor management and monitoring deficiencies and to implement corrective actions.

    Description of Respondents: State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 90.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 38.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07120 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary Meeting Notice of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board AGENCY:

    Research, Education, and Economics, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App 2, Section 1408 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3123), and the Agricultural Act of 2014, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announces an open virtual meeting of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board.

    DATES:

    The National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board will meet via teleconference on April 14, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will take place virtually at the AT&T Meeting Room below. Please follow the pre-registration instructions to ensure your participation in the meeting.

    Call-In instructions for Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time:

    Web Preregistration: Participants may preregister for this teleconference at http://emsp.intellor.com?p=419202&do=register&t=8. Once the participant registers, a confirmation page will display dial-in numbers and a unique PIN, and the participant will also receive an email confirmation of this information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michele Esch, Designated Federal Officer and Executive Director, National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0321, Washington, DC 20250-0321; telephone: (202) 720-3684; fax: (202) 720-6199; or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On Tuesday, April 14, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time a virtual meeting of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board will be conducted to hear the summary of findings and recommendations on the review of the animal handling, care, and welfare at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, hear stakeholder input received from this meeting as well as other written comments, and provide input on the report. The report is available at www.ree.usda.gov. This meeting is open to the public and any interested individuals wishing to attend. Opportunity for verbal public comment will be offered on the day of the meeting. Written comments by attendees or other interested stakeholders will be welcomed for the public record before and up to the day of the meeting (by close of business Tuesday, April 14, 2015). All written statements must be sent to Michele Esch, Designated Federal Officer and Executive Director, National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0321, Washington, DC 20250-0321; or email: [email protected] All statements will become a part of the official record of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board and will be kept on file for public review in the Research, Education, and Economics Advisory Board Office.

    Done at Washington, DC, this 20th day of March 2015. Ann Bartuska, Deputy Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07145 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request March 24, 2015.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by April 29, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service

    Title: Interstate Movement of Sheep and Goats; Recordkeeping for Approved Livestock Marketing Facilities and Slaughtering and Rendering Establishments.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0258.

    Summary of Collection: The Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA) of 2002 is the primary Federal law governing the protection of animal health. The law gives the Secretary of Agriculture broad authority to detect, control, or eradicate pests or diseases of livestock or poultry. Disease surveillance and prevention is the most effective method for maintaining a healthy animal population and enhancing the ability of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to help U.S. producers compete in the world market of animal and animal product trade. The Veterinary Services (VS) program of APHIS is the unit responsible for carrying out the disease prevention mission. One of the APHIS disease eradication programs addresses scrapie. Scrapie is a progressive, degenerative, and eventually fatal disease affecting the central nervous system of sheep and goats. APHIS' regulations 9 CFR 71.20 and 9 CFR 71.21 regarding the movement of livestock to require approved livestock auction market facilities, slaughtering establishments, and rendering establishments to maintain certain records for 5 years (2 years if the records regard only swine or poultry).

    APHIS is merging the information collection 0579-0342, Recordkeeping for Approved Livestock Facilities, Slaughtering, and Rendering Establishments, into this package 0579-0258. These collections include the same regulations; therefore, it will be more efficient to have them consolidated into one collection. Collection 0579-0342 will be discontinued once this collection is approved.

    Need and Use of the Information: In order for APHIS' Disease prevention program to be effective, its animal identification, recordkeeping, and other requirements must be carried out at livestock facilities that handle livestock and poultry moving in interstate commerce. The individual legally responsible for the day-to-day operation of the facility must execute an Approval of Livestock Facilities Agreement with APHIS. The information restricts the interstate movement of livestock within the United States to control diseases of concern and approve livestock facilities and slaughtering and rendering establishments that handle livestock moving in interstate commerce.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 234.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 604.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07119 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold public meetings of the Council and its Committees.

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held Tuesday, April 14, 2015 through Thursday, April 16, 2015. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at: Ocean Place Resort, One Ocean Blvd., Long Branch, NJ 07740, telephone: (732) 571-4000.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State St., Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255. The Council's Web site, www.mafmc.org also has details on the meeting location, proposed agenda, webinar listen-in access, and briefing materials.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following items are on the agenda, though agenda items may be addressed out of order (changes will be noted on the Council's Web site when possible.)

    Tuesday, April 14, 2015 12:30 p.m.-2 p.m. Executive Committee (Closed Session) —Review and approve Advisory Panel recommendations 2 p.m. Council Convenes 2 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management —Discuss management approaches which address climate change and variability —Discuss regulatory alternatives to address unmanaged forage fish Wednesday, April 15, 2015 9 a.m. Council Convenes 9 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Golden Tilefish —Review 2016 specifications —Discuss timetable for Framework 10:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m. 2015 Implementation Plan —Consider initiation of Deepwater Complex FMP —Review and approve possible revisions to the Plan 11:30 a.m.-12 p.m. Control Rule Clarifications —Review staff and SSC recommendations —Approve changes in regulatory language 1:30 p.m.-2 p.m. Industry Funded Observer Amendment —Discuss and approve additional alternatives for Public Hearing Document 2 p.m.-2:30 p.m. River Herring Technical Expert Working Group (TEWG) —Update on recent activities 2:30 p.m.-3 p.m. Delaware River Herring/Shad Recreational Fishery, John Punola 3 p.m.-4 p.m. Bycatch Reduction in Summer Flounder Recreational Fishery, Dr. Jim Salierno and Carl Benson 4 p.m.-5 p.m. Proposed Rule—National Standards 1, 3, and 7, Deb Lambert 5 p.m.-6 p.m. Listening Session—Squid Capacity Amendment Scoping, Jason Didden Thursday, April 16, 2015 9 a.m. Council Convenes 9 a.m.-1 p.m. Business Session Organization Reports —NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Office —NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center —NOAA Office of General Counsel —NOAA Office of Law Enforcement —U.S. Coast Guard —Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Liaison Reports —New England Council —South Atlantic Council Executive Director's Report, Chris Moore —Review and approve changes to Council SOPPs Science Report, Rich Seagraves Committee Reports —SSC Continuing and New Business

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07157 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD849 Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a joint meeting of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Shrimp Advisory Panel and Deepwater Shrimp Advisory Panel (AP).

    SUMMARY:

    The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council will hold a joint meeting of its Shrimp and Deepwater Shrimp APs in North Charleston, SC. The meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, April 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, 5265 International Blvd., N. Charleston, SC 29418; telephone: (843) 308-9330.

    Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC, 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC, 29405; telephone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Shrimp and Deepwater Shrimp Advisory Panels will meet jointly and receive an update on the NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion for shrimp that includes the status of terms and conditions for the fishery, the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 2014 Shrimp Procedural Workshop including data and procedures for a shrimp stock assessment and bycatch estimations, and the Oculina Evaluation Team Report which includes a response by the team to consider a shrimp access area within the area currently closed to fishing. The AP members will provide comments and recommendations on these agenda items as appropriate. The AP members will also receive an update on the status of Amendment 8 to the Coral Fishery Management Plan to expand coral protected areas and address other business as necessary.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see ADDRESSES) 3 days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Dated: March 26, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07310 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Final Updated Framework for the National System of Marine Protected Areas and Response to Comments AGENCY:

    National Marine Protected Areas Center, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of the final updated Framework for the National System of Marine Protected Areas of the United States and response to comments on Draft Updated Framework.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior (DOI) jointly propose an updated Framework for the National System of Marine Protected Areas of the United States (Framework). The Framework is required by Executive Order 13158 on Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). This Framework provides overarching guidance for collaborative efforts among federal, state, commonwealth, territorial, tribal and local governments and stakeholders to implement an effective National System of MPAs (National System) from existing sites, build management capacity among MPA programs, coordinate collaborative efforts to address common management issues and identify ecosystem-based gaps in the protection of significant natural and cultural resources for possible future action by the nation's MPA authorities. This document updates the previous version of the Framework, completed in November 2008, using experience gained implementing the National System and advice from the Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee and MPA programs.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lauren Wenzel, Acting Director, National Marine Protected Areas Center, 301-713-7265 or [email protected].

    Copies of the updated Framework can be downloaded or viewed on the Internet at marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov. Copies can also be obtained through the contact person noted above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on MPA Framework

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Protected Areas Center (MPA Center), within the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, in cooperation with the Department of the Interior (DOl), completed the Framework for the National System of Marine Protected Areas of the United States (Framework) to meet requirements under Executive Order 13158 on Marine Protected Areas (Order) in November 2008. NOAA and DOI updated this Framework to reflect five years of implementation experience as well as advice from MPA management agencies and the Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee. The purpose of this notice is to notify the public of the availability of the updated Framework and to respond to public comment received on a draft update published October 27, 2014.

    Executive Order 13158 calls for the development of a National System of MPAs to “enhance the conservation of our Nation's natural and cultural marine heritage and the ecologically and economically sustainable use of the marine environment for future generations.” Established in November 2008, the National System provides a mechanism for MPA managers to voluntarily collaborate on shared management challenges; strengthen linkages among sites to enhance the management of marine resources; and build management capacity.

    This proposed updated Framework is streamlined for greater clarity and readability, has an increased focus on the functions of the National System, and describes the role of the MPA Center in coordinating and supporting the National System. It also includes substantial revisions to the criteria for cultural resources, adding a criterion that allows MPAs created by tribes and indigenous people to be eligible for the National System.

    II. Comments and Responses

    On October 27, 2014, NOAA and DOI (agencies) published the updated Framework for public comment (79 FR 63899). By the end of the two-month comment period, five individual submissions had been received. Several of the comments raised more than one issue, so related comments have been summarized and grouped below into thematic categories. For each of the categories listed below, a summary of comments is provided, and a corresponding response provides an explanation and rationale about changes that were or were not made in the final updated Framework.

    MPA Networks and New MPAs

    Comment: The updated Framework puts a greater emphasis on expanding MPA networks and creating new MPAs, moving the focus from more pressing needs of existing sites. Moreover, the focus on ecosystem connectivity may not be appropriate for existing MPAs, and may not serve a larger conservation purpose.

    Response: The development of MPA networks is a widely recognized marine conservation tool, acknowledged to be effective in providing the spatial links needed to maintain ecosystem processes and connectivity, as well as improving resilience of ecosystems and the communities that depend on them. NOAA and DOI believe that encouraging the science-based creation of MPA networks is fundamental to fulfilling the goals of the National System of MPAs. This focus on enhancing ecosystem connectivity will actually help realize the achievement of existing conservation objectives of MPAs.

    The updated Framework notes the importance of fostering effective management of existing MPAs as well as identifying priorities for conservation where new MPAs may be an appropriate solution. Contributing to planning for new MPAs is not a major focus of the updated Framework, but part of an overall approach to developing an effective and representative National System of MPAs.

    Defining and Implementing “Avoid Harm” Provision

    Comment: The updated Framework should provide more clarity regarding definitions and implementation of the requirement in Executive Order 13158 for federal agencies to “avoid harm” to the resources protected by an MPA.

    Response: The updated Framework notes that the Executive Order does not provide new legal authority for any federal agency or the MPA Center to review activities of any other federal agency or to create different standards for existing reviews. Instead, the implementation of Section 5, and the national policy it articulates, is achieved using existing legal authorities that shape how federal action agencies identify, review, mitigate, or otherwise alter their activities based on impacts to natural or cultural resources of National System MPAs. NOAA and DOI believe that given the importance of individual agency authorities in implementing this requirement of Executive Order 13158, no single definition of “harm” is possible. The important context of each agency's authorities will govern agencies' analyses of harm, including major versus minor or direct versus indirect harm.

    The language in the Executive Order that stipulates that federal agencies avoid harm “to the maximum extent practicable” allows for the consideration of important social and economic implications of proposed activities within an MPA. Where appropriate, and upon request by one or more agency, the MPA Center may provide technical assistance (e.g., guidance on best practices), coordination, or facilitation to agencies seeking to avoid harm to National System MPAs.

    Social and Economic Importance of the Marine Environment

    Comment: The updated Framework lacks a discussion about the social and economic importance of the marine environment to local communities and economies.

    Response: The agencies have modified the Framework to more fully acknowledge the social and economic importance of the marine environment in the section on “Benefits of an Effective National System” as well as the introduction.

    Role of Regional Planning Bodies

    Comment: The updated Framework should not reference linkages between the National System of MPAs in assisting Regional Planning Bodies in potential work to plan new MPAs, as these Bodies have not been established by statute and could unnecessarily restrict access for certain human uses.

    Response: Regional Planning Bodies (RPBs) were called for in the Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, and are a key component of the National Ocean Policy and the Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning. Insofar as the RPBs, or equivalent regional planning efforts may consider MPAs and other forms of place-based conservation within the broader mosaic of ocean management, NOAA and DOI will provide expertise on MPA issues and provide information and tools to support decisions about place-based management. The Framework has been updated to recognize that regional planning bodies are but one type of regional marine management initiative, and they are referenced as such.

    National System of MPAs and Magnuson-Stevens Act

    Comment: The updated Framework should clarify that MPAs must be managed in a manner consistent with existing laws. NOAA and DOI should clarify that the concept of “sustainable fisheries” is to be implemented within the context of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

    Response: The purpose of the updated Framework is to provide a common reference for all federal, state, territorial and tribal programs who wish to participate in the National System of MPAs. As such, it must address all authorities relevant to MPA governance, not solely the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The updated Framework makes clear that it is to be implemented in the context of existing authorities.

    Monitoring and Evaluation

    Comment: Monitoring and evaluation efforts to determine the effectiveness of the current National System of MPAs should be a priority. The MPA Center should provide an analytical basis for identifying which MPAs that are accomplishing their goals and which are not. The MPA Center should publish a biennial “State of the National System” report as called for in the Executive Order.

    Response: The role of the MPA Center related to monitoring and evaluation is to build the capacity of federal and state marine protected area programs to more effectively manage natural and cultural marine resources, and to serve as a unique and neutral source of marine protected area-related science, information and tools for coastal and ocean decision-makers. Individual MPA programs are responsible for conducting their own monitoring and evaluation, and assessing progress toward program and site-level goals. Periodically, the MPA Center may undertake an evaluation of the National System itself, with the aim of identifying opportunities for improving the collaboration among the nation's MPA programs, including addressing gaps in spatial protection for important areas. For example, in October 2013, the MPA Center published, Marine Protected Areas of the United States: Conserving Our Oceans, One Place at a Time—a summary of the state of all US MPAs and of the National System.

    Tribal Representation

    Comment: The updated Framework should consider including more than one tribal representative to the National System Programs Workgroup. Tribal interests are diverse, and having a single representative appointed to speak for other tribes is a concern.

    Response: The updated Framework states that there will be one member of the National System Workgroup for each participating MPA program. Therefore, each tribal government formally participating in the National System of MPAs would have membership on the Workgroup. In addition, the Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee advises NOAA and DOI on issues related to cultural resource management, including areas managed by and important to tribes, and has established a Cultural Heritage Resources Workgroup to provide expertise on these issues.

    Funding

    Summary: NOAA should be realistic about what funding will be available and what can be accomplished with existing funding. It should also include an estimate of funding needed to guide implementation of the updated Framework.

    Response: NOAA and DOI believe that the updated Framework is not intended to be an implementation plan, and detailed information on funding is not appropriate for this document. The updated Framework does note that implementation of activities will be dependent on levels of funding.

    Dated: March 11, 2015. Daniel J. Basta, Director, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07262 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Interagency Working Group on the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act AGENCY:

    National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice, Webinars.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Ocean Service (NOS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) publishes this notice to announce a series of webinars designed to initiate conversation between federal representatives and stakeholders on a number of topics related to harmful algal blooms (HABs) and hypoxia, as mandated by the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2014 (HABHRCA). HABHRCA tasks federal agencies to advance the understanding of HAB and hypoxia events, and to respond to, detect, predict, control, and mitigate these events to the greatest extent possible.

    The Interagency Working Group on HABHRCA (IWG-HABHRCA) is comprised of representatives from a number of federal agencies. Through these webinars, the group seeks to connect and speak with a wide range of stakeholders, including relevant management and planning bodies, resource officials, economists, tribal resource management officials, scientists and public health experts, industries affected by HABs and hypoxia, nonprofit groups, the general public, and others. The IWG-HABHRCA would like to consult with stakeholders on topics such as:

    • Regional priorities for ecological, economic, and social research on the causes and impacts of HABs and hypoxia, needs for improved monitoring and early warning, and new approaches to prevention, control, and mitigation;

    • Communication and information dissemination methods that state, tribal, and local governments may undertake to educate and inform the public concerning HABs and hypoxia; and

    • Perceived needs for handling HAB and hypoxia events, as well as an action strategy for managing future situations.

    DATES:

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for meeting dates.

    ADDRESSES:

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for meeting Web addresses.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Caitlin Gould ([email protected], 301-713-3020, x 174) or Stacey DeGrasse ([email protected], 240-402-1470).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NOAA is publishing this notice to announce a series of webinars designed to initiate conversation between federal representatives and stakeholders on a number of topics related to HABs and hypoxia, some of the most scientifically complex and economically damaging issues affecting our ability to safeguard the health of our nation's coastal and freshwater ecosystems. The IWG-HABHRCA was established to coordinate and convene with relevant federal agencies to discuss HAB and hypoxia events in the United States, and to develop a number of reports and assessments of these situations. The webinars are designed to gain information on and discuss what relevant stakeholders perceive to be their needs for handling HAB and hypoxia events, as well as an action strategy for managing future situations. All interested parties are encouraged to attend and participate. As described further below, preregistration is required to participate in these webinars.

    Stakeholders are encouraged to submit comments and questions in advance of and following each webinar. Electronic comments and questions may be submitted via email ([email protected]). Written comments may be submitted to Caitlin Gould at NOAA, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, SSMC-4, #8234, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    Meeting dates:

    National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Webinar—March 26, 2015, 11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. EDT

    Regional Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Webinar—Southeast/Gulf of Mexico/Mid-Atlantic—April 2, 2015, 12:30 p.m.-1:30 p.m. EDT

    Regional Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Webinar—Inland/Great Lakes—April 22, 2015, 11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. EDT

    Regional Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Webinar—Northwest—April 29, 2015, 2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. EDT (11:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. PDT)

    Regional Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Webinar—Northeast—April 30, 2015, 11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. EDT

    Real-time remote access to the webinars will be available via the following options:

    National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Webinar

    ○ Internet Webinar Access: https://fda.webex.com/fda/j.php?MTID=m6e6880abb9f86af5ecba66e01c391612

    Password: National

    ○ To view the webinar in other time zones or languages: https://fda.webex.com/fda/j.php?MTID=m9a739ad15d3ede13ca70be9894153643

    Password: National

    ○ Teleconference Only Access:

    Provide your number when you join the meeting to receive a call back.

    Alternatively, you can call one of the following numbers:

    • Local: 1-301-796-7777

    • Toll free: 1-855-828-1770

    Follow the instructions that you hear on the phone and enter Cisco Unified MeetingPlace meeting ID: 745 274 247

    Regional Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Webinar—Southeast/Gulf of Mexico/Mid-Atlantic

    ○ Internet Webinar Access: https://fda.webex.com/fda/j.php?MTID=m0eac8252e84dd3993a1ea32604d1adf4

    Password: Southeast

    ○ To view the webinar in other time zones or languages: https://fda.webex.com/fda/j.php?MTID=md5b3388c42c433729d906d6c5622d164

    Password: Southeast

    ○ Teleconference Only Access:

    Provide your number when you join the meeting to receive a call back.

    Alternatively, you can call one of the following numbers:

    • Local: 1-301-796-7777

    • Toll free: 1-855-828-1770

    Follow the instructions that you hear on the phone and enter Cisco Unified MeetingPlace meeting ID: 749 761 616

    Regional Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Webinar—Inland/Great Lakes

    ○ Internet Webinar Access: https://fda.webex.com/fda/j.php?MTID=mf98ac949c431ffe04b674057de8bd809

    Password: Inland

    ○ To view the webinar in other time zones or languages: https://fda.webex.com/fda/j.php?MTID=m1729f80ba875d8f87a0c5661d354529a

    Password: Inland

    ○ Teleconference Only Access:

    Provide your number when you join the meeting to receive a call back.

    Alternatively, you can call one of the following numbers:

    • Local: 1-301-796-7777

    • Toll free: 1-855-828-1770

    Follow the instructions that you hear on the phone and enter Cisco Unified MeetingPlace meeting ID: 741 855 825

    Regional Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Webinar—Northwest

    ○ Internet Webinar Access: https://fda.webex.com/fda/j.php?MTID=m4e9bb6ef61d4f8257486d29884ff67e0

    Password: Northwest

    ○ To view the webinar in other time zones or languages: https://fda.webex.com/fda/j.php?MTID=mea7088d04482f51a0ab659e6d9564e24

    Password: Northwest

    ○ Teleconference Only Access:

    Provide your number when you join the meeting to receive a call back.

    Alternatively, you can call one of the following numbers:

    • Local: 1-301-796-7777

    • Toll free: 1-855-828-1770

    Follow the instructions that you hear on the phone and enter Cisco Unified MeetingPlace meeting ID: 748 981 584

    Regional Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Webinar—Northeast

    ○ Internet Webinar Access: https://fda.webex.com/fda/j.php?MTID=m3bde49b5ce0994462f9aae9e330e1438

    Password: Northeast

    ○ To view the webinar in other time zones or languages: https://fda.webex.com/fda/j.php?MTID=m72ded81789dedac878c7ad13429751b3

    Password: Northeast

    ○ Teleconference Only Access:

    Provide your number when you join the meeting to receive a call back.

    Alternatively, you can call one of the following numbers:

    • Local: 1-301-796-7777

    • Toll free: 1-855-828-1770

    Follow the instructions that you hear on the phone and enter Cisco Unified MeetingPlace meeting ID: 744 725 401

    Persons wishing to attend the meeting online via the webinar must register in advance no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the evening before each webinar, by sending an email to [email protected] The number of webinar connections available for the meetings is limited to 500 participants and will therefore be available on a first-come, first-served basis. The agenda for the webinars will include time for questions and answers or comments about the agencies' efforts in implementing HABHRCA.

    Other Information:

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

    Dated: March 24, 2015. Mary Erickson, Director, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07247 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-836] Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY:

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

    DATES:

    Effective Date: March 30, 2015.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) received a timely request for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from the Republic of Korea. The Department has determined that the request meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Schauer, 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) 482-0410.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from the Republic of Korea published in the Federal Register on February 10, 2000.1 Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we received a timely request for a new shipper review of the order from Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd. (Hyundai).2 Hyundai certified that it is both the producer and exporter of the subject merchandise upon which the request was based.3

    1See Notice of Amendment of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and the Republic of Korea, 65 FR 6585 (February 10, 2000) (Order).

    2See Hyundai's new shipper request dated February 27, 2015.

    3Id., at Exhibit 1.

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Hyundai certified that it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (POI).4 In addition, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Hyundai certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer who exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POI, including those respondents not individually examined during the POI.5

    4Id.

    5Id.

    In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2), Hyundai submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) The date on which it first shipped subject merchandise for export to the United States; (2) the volume of its first shipment; and (3) the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.6

    6Id., at Exhibits 1, 2, and 3.

    Period of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(A) of the Act, the period of review (POR) for new shipper reviews initiated in the month immediately following the anniversary month will be the twelve-month period immediately preceding the anniversary month. Therefore, under this order, the POR is February 1, 2014, through January 31, 2015.

    Initiation of New Shipper Review

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), the Department finds that the request from Hyundai meets the threshold requirements for initiation of a new shipper review for shipments of certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from the Republic of Korea produced and exported by Hyundai.7

    7See the memorandum to the file entitled “Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea: Initiation Checklist for Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd.” dated concurrently with this notice.

    The Department intends to issue the preliminary results of this new shipper review no later than 180 days from the date of initiation and final results of the review no later than 90 days after the date the preliminary results are issued.8

    8See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.

    We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the subject merchandise from Hyundai in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because Hyundai certified that it produced and exported subject merchandise, the sale of which is the basis for the request for a new shipper review, we will apply the bonding privilege to Hyundai only for subject merchandise which was produced and exported by Hyundai.

    To assist in its analysis of the bona fides of Hyundai's sales, upon initiation of this new shipper review, the Department will require Hyundai to submit on an ongoing basis complete transaction information concerning any sales of subject merchandise to the United States that were made subsequent to the POR.

    Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in the new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306.

    This initiation and notice are published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i).

    Dated: March 24, 2015. Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07198 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS--P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold meetings of its Joint Hawaii, Marianas and American Samoa Archipelago Plan Team (Joint PT) and the Council's Fishery Data Collection and Research Committee—Technical Committee (FDCRC-TC). The Joint PT will review the status of the nearshore fisheries, data collection and research issues and improvements, evaluation of the 2014 catch and Annual Catch Limit (ACL) specifications, developing a Cooperative Research framework and review the essential fish habitat (EFH) and habitat area of particular concern criteria for the Western Pacific Region. The FDCRC-TC will review the status of the data collection projects, determine priority tasks, schedule, and assignments as well as develop an omnibus FDCRC proposal.

    DATES:

    The Joint PT meeting on April 14, 2015, and the FDCRC-TC meeting April 16-17, 2015. For specific times and agendas, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Joint PT and FDCRC-TC meetings will be held at the Council office, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813; telephone: (808) 522-8220.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone: (808) 522-8220.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public comment periods will be provided. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.

    Schedule and Agenda for the Joint PT Meeting April 14, 2015—8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. 1. Welcome and introductions 2. Approval of draft agenda & assignment of rapporteurs 3. Report on previous Plan Team recommendations and Council actions 4. 2014 annual report modules A. American Samoa coral reef, crustacean and bottomfish fishery B. Guam coral reef, crustacean and bottomfish fishery C. CNMI coral reef, crustacean and bottomfish fishery D. Hawaii coral reef, crustacean, and bottomfish fishery 5. Annual Catch Limits A. Evaluating 2014 catches to its respective 2014 ACLs (Action Item) B. Discussions C. Public Comment 6. Report on Data Collection and Research Projects A. Seasonal run fishery data collection B. Improving commercial vendor reporting C. Abundance estimation of Hawaii akule using aerial surveys D. Determining biological reference points E. Productivity and susceptibility analysis of the coral reef fisheries F. Discussions G. Public Comment 7. Update Cooperative Research and developing priorities A. Background on NMFS Cooperative Research Program B. Developing a framework for Cooperative Research in WP region C. Discussions D. Public Comment 8. Review of the Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Science Review and PIRO Recommendations A. Background and current status B. Options for HAPC Designation—Application of EFH Final Rule Considerations C. Discussions D. Public Comment 9. General Discussions 10. Archipelagic Plan Team Recommendations 11. Other Business Schedule and Agenda for the FDCRC-TC Meeting: April 16, 2015—8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. 1. Welcome and introductions 2. Approval of draft agenda 3. Report on accomplishments from the last FDCRC-TC meeting 4. Report on Data Collection and Research Projects A. Seasonal run fishery data collection B. Improving commercial vendor reporting C. Status of CNMI data collection projects i. Tinian fishery data collection ii. Mandatory reporting iii. Fishery Information System electronic reporting D. Status of the AS and CNMI genetic projects E. Determining essential fish habitat for coral reef fish 5. Moving towards a comprehensive database system and modern day reporting A. Alaska Fishery Information Network: engine for science and management B. Digital Deck: Utilizing mobile technology for reporting catch C. SHINYAPP: Flexibility in report generation D. Discussions E. Public Comment 6. Review of the strategic plan and taking the step forward A. Species and fishery prioritization B. Funding source identification C. Prioritizing tasks D. Assignment of funding source 7. General Discussions 8. Archipelagic FDCRC Technical Committee Recommendations 9. Other Business April 17, 2015—8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. 10. Work session overview A. Coverage of the work session B. Sample proposals and funding FFOs C. Project assignment 11. Drafting of project narratives 12. Developing timelines and performance monitoring standards 13. Adjourn Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07156 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD847 Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its King and Spanish Mackerel Advisory Panel (AP) in North Charleston, SC. The meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. on Wednesday, April 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, 5265 International Blvd., N. Charleston, SC 29418; telephone: (843) 308-9330.

    Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405; telephone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The King and Spanish Mackerel AP will receive updates on recent amendments to the Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan for the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic (Mackerel FMP). The AP will receive an update on Amendment 26 to the Mackerel FMP that includes alternatives for revisions to the annual catch limits and stock management boundary for king mackerel and to allow the sale of king mackerel bycatch in the shark gillnet fishery. The AP will also receive a presentation on electronic reporting and review the Generic Charterboat Reporting Amendment. Additionally, the AP will be briefed on genetic research on South Carolina sub-populations of cobia. The AP will provide recommendations as appropriate and address other business as necessary.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) 3 days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07175 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Amended Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges

    Flider Electronics, LLC a/k/a Flider Electronics d/b/a Trident International Corporation d/b/a Trident International d/b/a Trident International Corporation, LLC, 837 Turk Street, San Francisco, California 94102

    and

    Pavel Semenovich Flider a/k/a Pavel Flider, 21 Eye Street, San Rafael, California 94901

    and

    Gennadiy Semenovich Flider a/k/a Gennadiy Flider, 699 36th Avenue #203, San Francisco, California 94121

    Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration Regulations (the “Regulations” or “EAR”),1 the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”), U.S. Department of Commerce, through its Office of Export Enforcement (“OEE”), has requested that I issue an Order temporarily denying, for a period of 180 days, the export privileges of Flider Electronics, LLC, also known as Flider Electronics, and doing business as Trident International Corporation, Trident International, and Trident International Corporation, LLC. Flider Electronics, LLC is a California limited liability company based in San Francisco, California. It is operated, at least in substantial part, for the purpose of procuring and exporting U.S.-origin electronic components. California State Corporation Number C1908339 has been used in connection with the doing business names of Trident International Corporation, Trident International, and Trident International Corporation, LLC, but that number is associated with Flider Electronics, LLC and the address used in connection with those doing business as names is the same address as Flider Electronics, LLC. Pavel Semenovich Flider, also known as Pavel Flider, is the president and owner of Flider Electronics/Trident International (“Trident”). His brother Gennadiy Semenovich Flider, also known as Gennadiy Flider, has identified himself as Trident's office manager, since 2003, and his duties include the purchase of items from U.S. distributors, the shipment of those items abroad, and related filings with U.S. Government agencies.2

    1 The Regulations are currently codified at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2014). The EAR issued under the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2401-2420 (2000)) (“EAA”). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 7, 2014 (79 FR 46959 (Aug. 11, 2014)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq.) (2006 & Supp. IV 2010).

    2 I approved OEE's request and issued a temporary denial order against Trident on March 19, 2015. Pavel Flider and Gennadiy Flider were added to that order, as issued, as related persons to Trident. This amended order makes limited revision to page 6 of the March 19, 2015 order, and does not change my findings or the terms of the order issued on March 19, 2015. See pp. 6-11, infra.

    Pursuant to Section 766.24, BIS may issue an order temporarily denying a respondent's export privileges upon a showing that the order is necessary in the public interest to prevent an “imminent violation” of the Regulations. 15 CFR 766.24(b)(1) and 776.24(d). “A violation may be `imminent' either in time or degree of likelihood.” 15 CFR 766.24(b)(3). BIS may show “either that a violation is about to occur, or that the general circumstances of the matter under investigation or case under criminal or administrative charges demonstrate a likelihood of future violations.” Id. As to the likelihood of future violations, BIS may show that the violation under investigation or charge “is significant, deliberate, covert and/or likely to occur again, rather than technical or negligent [.]” Id. A “lack of information establishing the precise time a violation may occur does not preclude a finding that a violation is imminent, so long as there is sufficient reason to believe the likelihood of a violation.” Id.

    In its request, OEE has presented evidence that it has reason to believe that Trident engaged in conduct prohibited by the Regulations by exporting items subject to the EAR to Russia via transshipment through third countries. In Automated Export System (“AES”) filings it made, Trident identified as “ultimate consignees” companies in Estonia and Finland that BIS has reason to believe were operating as freight forwarders and not end users of the U.S.-origin items. OEE's presentation also indicates that at least two of these transactions are known to have involved items that are listed on the Commerce Control List and that a search of BIS's licensing database reveals no licensing history of controlled U.S.-origin electronics to Russia for the company and individuals captioned in this case. Based on, inter alia, the transshipment of the items, the misrepresentations made on the AES filings, and information obtained pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (“MLAT”) request, OEE indicates that it has reason to believe that these exports required a license.

    A. Detained Shipments on April 6, 2013

    On or about April 6, 2013, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) detained two outbound shipments at San Francisco International Airport. CBP ultimately allowed one of these exports to proceed, but the other attempted export was not and the items were ultimately seized. The manifest and the AES filing for the seized shipment described the items as “power supplies,” but the shipment actually contained, among other items, 15 Xilinx field programmable gate array (FPGA) circuits that were controlled under Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 3A001.a.2.c for national security reasons and generally required a license for Russia. The shipping documentation also listed Logilane Oy Ltd. in Finland (“Logilane”) as the ultimate consignee. Open source information confirmed that Logilane was a freight forwarder and thus unlikely to be the end user for the items contained in the shipment. When questioned about the shipment, Pavel Flider requested that the ultimate consignee be changed to Adimir OU (“Adimir”) in Estonia, which itself also proved to be a freight forwarder as discussed further below.

    B. Interviews of Pavel Flider and Gennadiy Flider

    On or about April 19, 2013, OEE interviewed Trident office manager Gennadiy Flider, who identified his responsibilities as handling the procurement and shipment of items, including for export. He stated Trident had been doing business with Adimir for many years and that it was the only customer that his company had. He also indicated that Trident at times shipped items intended for its Estonian customer to Finland, claiming this was because it was cheaper.

    Similarly, in an August 5, 2013 interview, Trident's president and owner Pavel Flider stated that Adimir was Trident's one and only customer and that at times Adimir requested that items be shipped to a freight forwarder in Finland. Both Gennadiy Flider and Pavel Flider denied shipping to Russia.

    C. July 2013 Detention and Subsequent Seizure

    On or about July 20, 2013, the U.S. Government detained a Trident shipment bound for Adimir in Estonia. In addition to Adimir being identified as the ultimate consignee on the AES filing, the items were identified as “Electronic Equipment.” A review of the invoice showed six Xilinx FPGAs, items which were controlled under ECCN 3A001.a.2.c for national security reasons and generally required a license for Russia. Moreover, an inspection of the shipment uncovered 51 controlled Xilinx chips, rather than just the six that had been declared. CBP ultimately seized the shipment on or about October 18, 2013.

    D. Information Concerning Purported Estonian End User Obtained via an MLAT Request

    Based on information obtained in 2014 via a late 2013 MLAT request sent to Estonia relating to Adimir, BIS has reason to believe that Adimir was not an end user. During an interview, an Adimir corporate officer admitted to transshipping Trident shipments to Russia at the request of Pavel Flider. Adimir subsequently ceased operating.

    E. Changes in the Scheme

    Following the detention and seizures, the MLAT request, and the Adimir interview, Trident began exporting directly to Russia, claiming that the controlled circuits were for use in railroads. This assertion sought to track a note to ECCN 3A001.a.2, which indicates that the ECCN does not apply to integrated circuits for civil automotive or railway train applications. Pavel Flider reported to the U.S. distributor that Trident had been “referred” Russian customers by Adimir, which was going out of business. After being made aware that the items actually were intended for export to Russia, the U.S. distributor requested that Trident sign a Form BIS-711 “Statement by Ultimate Consignee and Purchaser,” which includes an end use statement and must be signed by the purchaser and the ultimate consignee.

    From on or about January 23, 2014, to on or about April 16, 2014, Trident began listing in its AES filings OOO Elkomtex (“Elkomtex”) in St. Petersburg, Russia, as the ultimate consignee. On or about July 17, 2014, the Elkomtex employees admitted that the company was not an end user but a distributor of electronics, acting as a broker between an exporter and an end use company.

    Beginning with an export on or about May 6, 2014, Trident again changed its export route and began exporting to a purported ultimate consignee named Logimix Ltd., in Vantaa, Finland (“Logimix”). Between on or about May 6, 2014, to on or about March 12, 2015, AES filings indicate that Trident has made 33 exports with Logimix listed as the ultimate consignee. Based on Logimix's Web site and other open source Internet information, however, OEE's presentation indicates that it has reason to believe that Logimix is a freight forwarder and not an end user. Moreover, given the violations, deceptive actions, and other evidence involving Trident, including those admitted by the Fliders, OEE also indicates that it has reason to believe that Trident have been making transshipments to Russia.

    OEE has further indicated that in February 2014, Trident ordered an additional 195 integrated circuits controlled under ECCN 3A001.a.2.c from a U.S. distributor and that those items would be available by in or around April 2015. In addition, Trident and Pavel Flider have been indicted for smuggling and money laundering, including in connection with some of the transactions discussed above. The U.S. Government also seized multiple accounts in which Trident had an interest.

    F. Findings

    I find that the evidence presented by BIS demonstrates that a violation of the Regulations is imminent in both time and degree of likelihood. Trident has engaged in some known violations of the Regulations and its actions, including changes in how it structures its export transactions and routes its shipments, appear designed to camouflage the actual destinations, end uses, and/or end users of the U.S.-origin items it has been and continues to export, including items on the Commerce Control List that are subject to national security-based license requirements. Moreover, when interviewed in 2013, the Fliders could not provide a reasonable explanation for the purported exports to Estonia and Finland. When for a time Trident began direct exports to Russia, the entity listed as the ultimate consignee admitted that it was not an end user and instead acting as a broker.

    In sum, the fact and circumstances taken as a whole provide strong indicators that future violations are likely absent the issuance of a TDO. As such, a TDO is needed to give notice to persons and companies in the United States and abroad that they should cease dealing with Trident in export transactions involving items subject to the EAR. Such a TDO is consistent with the public interest to preclude future violations of the EAR.

    Additionally, Section 766.23 of the Regulations provides that “[i]n order to prevent evasion, certain types of orders under this part may be made applicable not only to the respondent, but also to other persons then or thereafter related to the respondent by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business. Orders that may be made applicable to related persons include those that deny or affect export privileges, including temporary denial orders. . . .” 15 CFR 766.23(a). As stated above, Pavel Flider is the president and owner of Trident. Gennadiy Flider also is a Trident office manager, with responsibilities relating directly to the procurement and export activities at issue. As such, I find that Pavel Semenovich Flider and Gennadiy Semenovich Flider are related persons to Trident based on their positions of responsibility and that their additions to the order is necessary to prevent evasion.

    Accordingly, I find that an order denying the export privileges of Trident, Pavel Flider, and Gennadiy Flider is necessary, in the public interest, to prevent an imminent violation of the EAR.

    This Order is being issued on an ex parte basis without a hearing based upon BIS's showing of an imminent violation in accordance with Section 766.24 of the Regulations.

    It is therefore ordered:

    First, that FLIDER ELECTRONICS, LLC, a/k/a FLIDER ELECTRONICS, d/b/a TRIDENT INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, d/b/a TRIDENT INTERNATIONAL d/b/a TRIDENT INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, LLC, 837 Turk Street, San Francisco, California 94102; PAVEL SEMENOVICH FLIDER, a/k/a PAVEL FLIDER, 21 Eye Street, San Rafael, California 94901; and GENNADIY SEMENOVICH FLIDER, a/k/a GENNADIY FLIDER, 699 36th Avenue #203, San Francisco, California 94121, and when acting for or on their behalf, any successors or assigns, agents, or employees (each a “Denied Person” and collectively the “Denied Persons”) may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), or in any other activity subject to the EAR including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR.

    Second, that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of a Denied Person any item subject to the EAR;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by a Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby a Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from a Denied Person of any item subject to the EAR that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the EAR with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, that, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the EAR, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to a Denied Person by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order.

    In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(e) of the EAR, Flider Electronics, LLC d/b/a Trident International Corporation, may, at any time, appeal this Order by filing a full written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022. In accordance with the provisions of Sections 766.23(c)(2) and 766.24(e)(3) of the EAR, Pavel Semenovich Flider and Gennadiy Semenovich Flider may, at any time, appeal their inclusion as a related person by filing a full written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022.

    In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(d) of the EAR, BIS may seek renewal of this Order by filing a written request not later than 20 days before the expiration date. Flider Electronics, LLC d/b/a Trident International Corporation may oppose a request to renew this Order by filing a written submission with the Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, which must be received not later than seven days before the expiration date of the Order.

    A copy of this Order shall be sent to Flider Electronics LLC d/b/a Trident International Corporation and each related person, and shall be published in the Federal Register.

    This Order is effective upon issuance and shall remain in effect until September 14, 2015.

    Dated: March 23, 2015. David W. Mills, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07181 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-840, A-549-822] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India and Thailand: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) received requests to conduct administrative reviews of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from India and Thailand for the period February 1, 2014 through January 31, 2015. The anniversary month of these orders is February. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating these administrative reviews. The Department also received a request to defer the initiation of the administrative review for the order on shrimp from Thailand with respect to various Thai companies.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: March 30, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Blaine Wiltse at (202) 482-6345 (India) and Dennis McClure (202) 482-5973 (Thailand), AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    During the anniversary month of February 2015, the Department received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of the AD orders on shrimp from India and Thailand from the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (hereinafter, the petitioner), the American Shrimp Processors Association (ASPA), and certain individual companies.

    All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.

    Request To Defer Review of the AD Order on Shrimp From Thailand

    In their requests for administrative review, various Thai companies requested that the Department defer the initiation of the review for one year, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(c). These companies are identified by a * in the “Initiation of Reviews” section of this notice, below. The parties requested the deferral to reduce the burden on the companies and on the Department.

    The Department's regulations, as set forth in 19 CFR 351.213(c)(1)(i) and (ii), provide that the Department may defer the initiation of an antidumping duty administrative review, in whole or in part, for one year if: (1) The request for review was accompanied by a request to defer the review; and (2) neither the exporter or producer for which the deferral is requested, the importer of subject merchandise from that exporter or producer, nor a domestic interested party objects to the deferral. On March 13, 2015, the petitioner submitted a timely-filed objection to deferring the initiation of this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(c)(2).1

    1See the petitioner's March 13, 2015, letter.

    The preamble to the Department's regulations states that the Department established the provision for deferring the initiation of an administrative review, in part, to reduce burdens on the Department.2 We believe that deferring the instant review is not likely to save Departmental resources because it is likely that, in this review, as in every prior administrative review of the AD order on shrimp from Thailand,3 the Department will find it necessary to limit the number of respondents examined. Accordingly, even if the Department defers the administrative review for these companies, it will likely still review the same number of respondents, i.e., the maximum number of respondents which our resources will permit. Therefore, we have not deferred the instant review for any companies requesting deferral with respect to the AD order on shrimp from Thailand.

    2See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27317 (May 19, 1997).

    3See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2012-2013, 79 FR 15951 (March 24, 2014), unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Final Determination of No Shipments, and Partial Rescission of Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 51306 (August 28, 2014) (2012-2013 Thai Shrimp); and Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Revoke the Order (in Part); 2011-2012, 78 FR 15686 (March 12, 2013), unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Revocation of Order (in Part); 2011-2012, 78 FR 42497, 42498-42499 (July 16, 2013) (2011-2012 Thai Shrimp).

    Notice of No Sales

    If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (POR), it must notify the Department within 60 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. All submissions must be filed electronically at http://access.trade.gov in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.4 Such submissions are subject to verification in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(i), a copy must be served on every party on the Department's service list.

    4See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    Respondent Selection

    In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination in the administrative review of the AD orders on shrimp from India and Thailand, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the POR. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties having an APO within seven days of publication of this initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record of the applicable review. Rebuttal comments will be due five days after submission of initial comments.

    In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, the Department will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of these antidumping proceedings (i.e., investigation, administrative review, or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to these reviews, if the Department determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, the Department will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed.

    Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Requests for Reviews of Non-Shrimp Producers/Exporters

    In the 2011-2012 administrative review of shrimp from Thailand, the Department found that Kosamut Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Kosamut) and Tanaya International Co., Ltd./Tanaya Intl (collectively, Tanaya) were neither exporters nor producers of the subject merchandise, as defined in 19 CFR 351.213(b) and 351.102(b)(29)(i). Accordingly, we rescinded the review for these companies, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).5 Therefore, based upon that determination, we are not initiating an administrative review with respect to Kosamut or Tanaya for the current POR absent specific information that the companies at issue are exporters or producers of the subject merchandise.

    5See 2011-2012 Thai Shrimp, 78 FR at 42498-42499.

    In the 2013-2014 administrative review of shrimp from Thailand, the Department did not initiate a review with respect to GSE Lining Technology Co., Ltd. because the company neither produced nor exported shrimp.6 Therefore, we are not initiating an administrative review with respect to this company for the current POR.

    6See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India and Thailand: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 79 FR 18510 (April 2, 2014).

    Initiation of Reviews

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on shrimp from India and Thailand. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than March 9, 2016.

    Period to be reviewed Antidumping Duty Proceedings India: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp, A-533-840 2/1/14-1/31/15 Abad Fisheries Adilakshmi Enterprises Akshay Food Impex Private Limited Allana Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. Allanasons Ltd. AMI Enterprises Amulya Sea Foods Anand Aqua Exports Ananda Aqua Applications/Ananda Aqua Exports (P) Limited/Ananda Foods Ananda Enterprises (India) Private Limited Andaman Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. Angelique Intl Anjaneya Seafoods Apex Frozen Foods Private Limited 7 Aquatica Frozen Foods Global Pvt. Ltd. Arvi Import & Export Asvini Exports Asvini Fisheries Private Limited Avanti Feeds Limited Ayshwarya Seafood Private Limited B R Traders Baby Marine Exports Baby Marine International Baby Marine Sarass Balasore Marine Exports Private Limited Bhatsons Aquatic Products Bhavani Seafoods Bijaya Marine Products Blue Fin Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. Blue Water Foods & Exports P. Ltd. Bluepark Seafoods Private Ltd. BMR Exports BMR Industries Private Limited Britto Exports C P Aquaculture (India) Ltd. Calcutta Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. Canaan Marine Products Capithan Exporting Co. Castlerock Fisheries Ltd. Chemmeens (Regd) Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div.) Choice Canning Company Choice Trading Corporation Private Limited Coastal Aqua Coastal Corporation Ltd. Cochin Frozen Food Exports Pvt. Ltd. Coreline Exports Corlim Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. D2 D Logistics Private Limited Damco India Private Limited Delsea Exports Pvt. Ltd. Devi Fisheries Limited/Satya Seafoods Private Limited/Usha Seafoods Devi Marine Food Exports Private Ltd./Kader Exports Private Limited/Kader Investment and Trading Company Private Limited/Liberty Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd./Liberty Oil Mills Ltd./Premier Marine Products Private Limited 8/Universal Cold Storage Private Limited Diamond Seafoods Exports/Edhayam Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd./Kadalkanny Frozen Foods/Theva & Company Devi Sea Foods Limited 9 Digha Seafood Exports Esmario Export Enterprises Exporter Coreline Exports Falcon Marine Exports Limited/K.R. Enterprises Febin Marine Foods Five Star Marine Exports Private Limited Forstar Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. Frontline Exports Pvt. Ltd. G A Randerian Ltd. Gadre Marine Exports Galaxy Maritech Exports P. Ltd. Gayatri Seafoods Geo Aquatic Products (P) Ltd. Geo Seafoods Goodwill Enterprises Grandtrust Overseas (P) Ltd. GVR Exports Pvt. Ltd. Haripriya Marine Export Pvt. Ltd. Harmony Spices Pvt. Ltd. HIC ABF Special Foods Pvt. Ltd. Hindustan Lever, Ltd. Hiravata Ice & Cold Storage Hiravati Exports Pvt. Ltd. Hiravati International P. Ltd. (located at APM—Mafco Yard, Sector—18, Vashi, Navi, Mumbai—400 705, India) Hiravati International Pvt. Ltd. (located at Jawar Naka, Porbandar, Gujarat, 360 575, India) IFB Agro Industries Ltd. Indian Aquatic Products Indo Aquatics Indo Fisheries Indo French Shellfish Company Private Limited Innovative Foods Limited International Freezefish Exports Interseas ITC Limited, International Business ITC Ltd. Jagadeesh Marine Exports Jaya Satya Marine Exports Jaya Satya Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. Jayalakshmi Sea Foods Private Limited Jinny Marine Traders Jiya Packagings K R M Marine Exports Ltd. K V Marine Exports Kalyan Aqua & Marine Exports India Pvt. Ltd. Kalyanee Marine Kanch Ghar Karunya Marine Exports Private Limited Kay Kay Exports Kings Marine Products Koluthara Exports Ltd. Konark Aquatics & Exports Pvt. Ltd. Landauer Ltd. Libran Cold Storages (P) Ltd. Magnum Estates Limited Magnum Export Magnum Sea Foods Limited Malabar Arabian Fisheries Malnad Exports Pvt. Ltd. Mangala Marine Exim India Pvt. Ltd. Mangala Sea Products Mangala Seafoods Meenaxi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Milesh Marine Exports Private Limited MSRDR Exports MTR Foods Munnangi Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. N.C. John & Sons (P) Ltd. Naga Hanuman Fish Packers Naik Frozen Foods Private Limited Naik Seafoods Ltd. Navayuga Exports Neeli Aqua Private Limited Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited Nezami Rekha Sea Foods Private Limited NGR Aqua International Nila Sea Foods Exports Nila Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. Nine Up Frozen Foods Nutrient Marine Foods Limited Oceanic Edibles International Limited Overseas Marine Export Paragon Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. Paramount Seafoods Parayil Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Penver Products Pvt. Ltd. Pesca Marine Products Pvt. Ltd. Pijikay International Exports P Ltd. Pisces Seafood International Premier Exports International Premier Marine Foods Premier Seafoods Exim (P) Ltd. R V R Marine Products Limited Raa Systems Pvt. Ltd. Raju Exports Ram's Assorted Cold Storage Ltd. Raunaq Ice & Cold Storage Raysons Aquatics Pvt. Ltd. Razban Seafoods Ltd. RBT Exports RDR Exports RF Exports Riviera Exports Pvt. Ltd. Rohi Marine Private Ltd. S & S Seafoods S Chanchala Combines S.A. Exports S.J. Seafoods Safa Enterprises Sagar Foods Sagar Grandhi Exports Private Limited Sagar Samrat Seafoods Sagarvihar Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Sai Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. SAI Sea Foods Salvam Exports (P) Ltd. Sanchita Marine Products Private Limited Sandhya Aqua Exports Sandhya Aqua Exports Pvt. Ltd. Sandhya Marines Limited Santhi Fisheries & Exports Ltd. Sarveshwari Exports Sawant Food Products Sea Foods Private Limited Seagold Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Selvam Exports Private Limited Sharat Industries Ltd. Sharma Industries Shimpo Exports Pvt. Ltd. Shippers Exports Shiva Frozen Food Exports Pvt. Ltd. Shree Datt Aquaculture Farms Pvt. Ltd. Shroff Processed Food & Cold Storage P Ltd. Silver Seafood Sita Marine Exports Sowmya Agri Marine Exports Sprint Exports Pvt. Ltd. Sri Chandrakantha Marine Exports Sri Sakkthi Cold Storage Sri Satya Marine Exports Sri Venkata Padmavathi Marine Foods Pvt. Ltd. Srikanth International Star Agro Marine Exports Private Limited Star Organic Foods Incorporated Sterling Foods Sun-Bio Technology Ltd. Supran Exim Private Limited Suryamitra Exim Pvt. Ltd. Suvarna Rekha Exports Private Limited Suvarna Rekha Marines P Ltd. TBR Exports Pvt Ltd. Teekay Marine P. Ltd. Tejaswani Enterprises The Waterbase Ltd. Triveni Fisheries P Ltd. Uniroyal Marine Exports Ltd. Unitriveni Overseas V V Marine Products V.S Exim Pvt Ltd. Vasista Marine Veejay Impex Veronica Marine Exports Private Limited Victoria Marine & Agro Exports Ltd. Vinner Marine Vishal Exports Vitality Aquaculture Pvt., Ltd. Wellcome Fisheries Limited West Coast Frozen Foods Private Limited Z A Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. Thailand: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp, A-549-822 2/1/14-1/31/15 A Foods 1991 Co., Limited/May Ao Foods Co., Ltd.10 * A. Wattanachai Frozen Products Co., Ltd.* A.P. Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.* A.S. Intermarine Foods Co., Ltd. ACU Transport Co., Ltd. Ampai Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. Anglo-Siam Seafoods Co., Ltd. Apex Maritime (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Apitoon Enterprise Industry Co., Ltd. Applied DB Ind. Asian Seafood Coldstorage (Sriracha) * Asian Seafoods Coldstorage Public Co., Ltd./Asian Seafoods Coldstorage (Suratthani) Co., Limited/STC Foodpak Ltd.* 11 Assoc. Commercial Systems B.S.A. Food Products Co., Ltd.* Bangkok Dehydrated Marine Product Co., Ltd.* C Y Frozen Food Co., Ltd. C.P. Mdse C.P. Merchandising Co., Ltd.* CP Retailing and Marketing Co., Ltd.* C.P. Intertrade Co. Ltd.* Calsonic Kansei (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Century Industries Co., Ltd. Chaivaree Marine Products Co., Ltd. Chaiwarut Company Limited Charoen Pokphand Foods Public Co., Ltd.* Charoen Pokphand Petrochemical Co., Ltd.* Chonburi LC Chue Eie Mong Eak Commonwealth Trading Co., Ltd. Core Seafood Processing Co., Ltd. CPF Food Products Co., Ltd.* Crystal Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. and/or Crystal Seafood* Daedong (Thailand) Co. Ltd. Daiei Taigen (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Daiho (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Dynamic Intertransport Co., Ltd. Earth Food Manufacturing Co., Ltd.* F.A.I.T. Corporation Limited Far East Cold Storage Co., Ltd. Fimex VN Findus (Thailand) Ltd. Fortune Frozen Foods (Thailand) Co., Ltd.* Frozen Marine Products Co., Ltd. Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co., Ltd.* Gallant Seafoods Corporation Global Maharaja Co., Ltd. Golden Sea Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.* Golden Thai Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. Good Fortune Cold Storage Co. Ltd.* Good Luck Product Co., Ltd.* Grobest Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. Gulf Coast Crab Intl. H.A.M. International Co., Ltd. Haitai Seafood Co., Ltd. Handy International (Thailand) Co., Ltd.* Heng Seafood Limited Partnership Heritrade HIC (Thailand) Co., Ltd. High Way International Co., Ltd. I.S.A. Value Co., Ltd.* I.T. Foods Industries Co., Ltd.* Inter-Oceanic Resources Co., Ltd.* Inter-Pacific Marine Products Co., Ltd.* K & U Enterprise Co., Ltd.* K Fresh K.D. Trading Co., Ltd. K.L. Cold Storage Co., Ltd. KF Foods Ltd.* Kiang Huat Sea Gull Trading Frozen Food Public Co., Ltd.* Kibun Trdg. Kingfisher Holdings Ltd.* Kitchens of the Oceans (Thailand) Company, Ltd.* Klang Co., Ltd. Kongphop Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.* Lee Heng Seafood Co., Ltd.* Leo Transports Li-Thai Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. Lucky Union Foods Co., Ltd.* Magnate & Syndicate Co., Ltd. Mahachai Food Processing Co., Ltd. Mahachai Marine Foods Co., Ltd. Marine Gold Products Ltd.12 Merit Asia Foodstuff Co., Ltd. Merkur Co., Ltd. Ming Chao Ind Thailand N&N Foods Co., Ltd. N.R. Instant Produce Co., Ltd.* Namprik Maesri Ltd. Part.* Narong Seafood Co., Ltd.* Nongmon SMJ Products Ongkorn Cold Storage Co., Ltd./Thai-Ger Marine Co., Ltd.* Pacific Queen Co., Ltd. Pakfood Public Company Limited/Asia Pacific (Thailand) Co., Ltd./Chaophraya Cold Storage Co., Ltd./Okeanos Co., Ltd./Okeanos Food Co., Ltd./Takzin Samut Co., Ltd./Thai Union Frozen Products Public Co., Ltd./Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd.13 * Pakpanang Coldstorage Public Co., Ltd.* Penta Impex Co., Ltd. Pinwood Nineteen Ninety Nine Piti Seafood Co., Ltd.* Premier Frozen Products Co., Ltd. Preserved Food Specialty Co., Ltd.* Queen Marine Food Co., Ltd. Rayong Coldstorage (1987) Co., Ltd. S&D Marine Products Co., Ltd.* S&P Aquarium S&P Syndicate Public Company Ltd. S. Chaivaree Cold Storage Co., Ltd. S. Khonkaen Food Industry Public Co., Ltd. and/or S. Khonkaen Food Ind. Public * S.K. Foods (Thailand) Public Co. Limited * Samui Foods Company Limited Saota Seafood Factory SB Inter Food Co., Ltd. SCT Co., Ltd. Sea Bonanza Food Co., Ltd. SEA NT'L CO., LTD. Seafoods Enterprise Co., Ltd. Seafresh Fisheries/Seafresh Industry Public Co., Ltd.* Search and Serve Sethachon Co., Ltd.* Shianlin Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shing Fu Seaproducts Development Co.* Siam Food Supply Co., Ltd. Siam Haitian Frozen Food Co., Ltd.* Siam Intersea Co., Ltd.* Siam Marine Products Co. Ltd. Siam Ocean Frozen Foods Co. Ltd.* Siamchai International Food Co., Ltd. Smile Heart Foods Co. Ltd.* SMP Food Products, Co., Ltd.* Southport Seafood Co., Ltd.* Star Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. Starfoods Industries Co., Ltd.* Suntechthai Intertrading Co., Ltd. Surapon Foods Public Co., Ltd./Surat Seafoods Public Co., Ltd.* Surapon Nichirei Foods Co., Ltd.* Suratthani Marine Products Co., Ltd.* Suree Interfoods Co., Ltd. T.S.F. Seafood Co., Ltd. Tep Kinsho Foods Co., Ltd.* Teppitak Seafood Co., Ltd. Tey Seng Cold Storage Co., Ltd.* Thai Agri Foods Public Co., Ltd. Thai Hanjin Logistics Co., Ltd. Thai Mahachai Seafood Products Co., Ltd.* Thai Ocean Venture Co., Ltd. Thai Patana Frozen Thai Prawn Culture Center Co., Ltd. Thai Royal Frozen Food Co., Ltd.* Thai Spring Fish Co., Ltd.* Thai Union Manufacturing Company Limited * Thai World Imports and Exports Co., Ltd. Thai Yoo Ltd., Part. The Siam Union Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.* The Union Frozen Products Co., Ltd./Bright Sea Co., Ltd.* Trang Seafood Products Public Co., Ltd. Transamut Food Co., Ltd.* Tung Lieng Tradg United Cold Storage Co., Ltd. UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Company V. Thai Food Product Co., Ltd.* Wann Fisheries Co., Ltd.* Xian-Ning Seafood Co., Ltd.* Yeenin Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.* YHS Singapore Pte ZAFCO TRDG

    7 On December 11, 2012, the Department determined that Apex Frozen Foods Private Limited is the successor-in-interest to Apex Exports. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India, 77 FR 73619 (December 11, 2012).

    8 On December 2, 2014, Premier Marine Products Private Limited was found to be the successor-in-interest to Premier Marine Products. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India, 79 FR 71384 (December 2, 2014).

    9 Shrimp produced and exported by Devi Sea Foods (Devi) was excluded from the AD Indian order effective February 1, 2009. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Notice of Revocation of Order in Part, 75 FR 41813, 41814 (July 19, 2010). Accordingly, we are initiating this administrative review with respect to Devi only for shrimp produced in India where Devi acted as either the manufacturer or exporter (but not both).

    10 On December 1, 2010, the Department found that A Foods 1991 Co., Limited is the successor-in-interest to May Ao Company Limited. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand, 75 FR 74684 (Dec. 1, 2010). Because the effective date of this determination is during a prior POR, we included only A Foods 1991 Co., Limited for purposes of initiation.

    11 The request for deferral only covered Asian Seafoods Coldstorage Public Co., Ltd. and Asian Seafoods Coldstorage (Suratthani) Co., Limited.

    12 Shrimp produced and exported by Marine Gold Products Ltd. (Marine Gold) were excluded from the AD Thailand order effective February 1, 2012. See 2011-2012 Thai Shrimp, 78 FR at 42499. Accordingly, we are initiating this administrative review with respect to Marine Gold only for shrimp produced in Thailand where Marine Gold acted as either the manufacturer or exporter (but not both).

    13 In the 2012-2013 administrative review, the Department found that the following companies comprised a single entity: Thai Union Frozen Products Public Co. Ltd. and its affiliates, and Pakfood Public Company Limited and its affiliates. See 2012-2013 Thai Shrimp, 79 FR 51306. Absent information to the contrary, we intend to continue to treat these companies as a single entity for purposes of this administrative review.

    Administrative Protective Orders and Letters of Appearance

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Those procedures apply to the administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in either of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of separate letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    Revised Factual Information Requirements

    On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two regulations related to antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) other data or statements of facts; (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

    Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.14 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives. All segments of any antidumping duty proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 15 The Department intends to reject factual submissions in these administrative reviews if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

    14See section 782(b) of the Act.

    15See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also the frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at: http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping duty proceedings.16 The modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) submissions containing rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning CBP data; and (4) quantity and value questionnaire responses. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these administrative reviews.

    16See Extension of Time Limits: Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013).

    These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

    Dated: March 24, 2015. Gary Taverman Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary, for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07197 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-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: Deep Seabed Mining Exploration Licenses.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0145.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 1.

    Average Hours per Response: License renewals, 200 (annualized over 5 years to 40 hours); annual reports, 20 hours.

    Burden Hours: 60.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    NOAA's regulations at 15 CFR part 970 govern the issuing and monitoring of exploration licenses under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act. Any persons seeking a license must submit certain information that allows NOAA to ensure the applicant meets the standards of the Act. Persons with licenses are required to conduct monitoring and make reports, and they may request revisions, transfers, or extensions of licenses.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: Annually and every five years.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or maintain benefits.

    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 24, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07149 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD836 Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of SEDAR 41 pre Data Workshop II webinar.

    SUMMARY:

    The SEDAR 41 assessments of the South Atlantic stocks of red snapper and gray triggerfish will consist of a series of workshops and webinars: Data Workshops; an Assessment Process; and a Review Workshop. This notice is for a webinar associated with the Data portion of the SEDAR process. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DATES:

    A SEDAR 41 pre Data Workshop II webinar will be held on Wednesday, April 15, 2015 from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. The established times may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the assessment process. Such adjustments may result in the meeting being extended from, or completed prior to the time established by this notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julia Byrd at SEDAR (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below) to request an invitation providing webinar access information. Please request webinar invitations at least 24 hours in advance of each webinar.

    SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julia Byrd, SEDAR Coordinator; telephone: (843) 571-4366; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three-step process including: (1) Data Workshop(s); (2) Assessment Process; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop(s) is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

    The items of discussion in the pre Data Workshop webinar are as follows:

    1. Participants will review decisions made at the 2014 data workshop.

    2. Identify topics for discussion at the 2015 data workshop.

    3. Identify individuals responsible for updating and/or providing new datasets.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SEDAR office (see ADDRESSES) at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07174 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before April 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be submitted directly to OMB within 30 days of the notice's publication by email at [email protected] Please identify the comments by OMB Control No. 3038-0076. Please provide the Commission with a copy of all submitted comments at the address listed below. Please refer to OMB Reference No. 3038-0076, found on http://reginfo.gov. Comments may also be mailed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, and to Eileen Chotiner, Senior Program Analyst, Division of Clearing and Risk, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. Comments may also be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Agency Web site, via its Comments Online process: http://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

    Mail: Send to Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail, above.

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

    Please submit your comments to the Commission using only one of these methods.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures set forth in section 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.1

    1 Commission regulations referred to herein are found at 17 CFR 1 et seq. (2014).

    The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the rulemaking will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eileen Chotiner, Division of Clearing and Risk, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581; (202) 418-5467; email: [email protected], and refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0076.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: “Risk Management Requirements for Derivatives Clearing Organizations, 3038-0076.” This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: Part 39 of the Commission's regulations establishes risk management requirements for derivatives clearing organizations (“DCOs”), which are required to be registered with the Commission. Part 39 also establishes procedures for registration of DCOs. The Commission will use the information in this collection to assess compliance of DCOs and DCO applicants with requirements for DCOs prescribed in the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission regulations.

    Burden Statement: The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to average 10 hours per response.

    Respondents/Affected Entities: Derivatives clearing organizations and applicants for registration as a derivatives clearing organization.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 17.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,903 hours.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07201 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID DoD-2015-OS-0007] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 29, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Certification of Qualified Products; DD Form 1718; OMB Control Number 0704-0487.

    Type of Request: Extension.

    Number of Respondents: 1,276.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 1,276.

    Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 638.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain, certify and record qualification of products or processes falling under the DoD Qualification Program. This form is included as an exhibit in an appeal or hearing case file as evidence of the reviewer's products or process qualifications in advance of, and independent of an acquisition.

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit.

    Frequency: Biennially.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07191 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2015-OS-0027] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    • Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the OUSD (Personnel and Readiness) Office of Total Force Planning & Requirements, ATTN: Mr. Thomas Hessel, 4000 Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301, or call 703-697-3402.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Department of Defense Inventory of Contracts for Services Compliance; OMB Control Number 0704-0491.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to allow all DoD organizations to fully implement sections 235 and 2330a of title 10, United States Code.

    The information requested, such as the Reporting Period, Contract number, Task/Delivery Order Number, Customer Name and Address, Contracting Office Name and Address, Federal Supply Class or Service Code, Contractor Name and Address, Value of Contract Instrument, and the Number and Value of Direct Labor Hours will be used to facilitate the accurate identification of the function performed and to facilitate the estimate of the reliability of the data. The Direct Labor Hours are requested for use in calculating contractor manpower equivalents. This information is reported directly from the contractor because this is the most credible data source.

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit; not-for-profit institutions.

    Annual Burden Hours: 4,074.

    Number of Respondents: 48,884.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Average Burden Per Response: 5 minutes.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Respondent's obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07193 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records; Impact Evaluation of Training in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Behavior AGENCY:

    Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a new system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), the Department of Education (Department) publishes this notice of a new system of records entitled “Impact Evaluation of Training in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Behavior” (18-13-38). The National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance at the Department's Institute of Education Sciences (IES) awarded a contract in November 2013 to MDRC to provide evidence on the effectiveness of training teachers and school staff in multi-tiered systems of supports for behavior (MTSS-B).

    DATES:

    Submit your comments on this proposed new system of records on or before April 29, 2015.

    The Department filed a report describing the new system of records covered by this notice with the Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on March 18, 2015. This system of records will become effective on the later date of: (1) The expiration of the 40-day period for OMB review on April 27, 2015, unless OMB waives 10 days of the 40-day review period for compelling reasons shown by the Department, or (2) April 29, 2015, unless the system of records needs to be changed as a result of public comment or OMB review. The Department will publish any changes to the system of records or routine uses that result from public comment or OMB review.

    ADDRESSES:

    Address all comments about the new system of records to Dr. Audrey Pendleton, Associate Commissioner, Evaluation Division, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue NW., Room 502D, Washington, DC 20208-0001. Telephone: (202) 208-7078. If you prefer to send your comments via email, use the following address: [email protected]

    You must include the phrase “Impact Evaluation of Training in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Behavior” in the subject line of the email.

    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice at the Department in Room 502D, 555 New Jersey Avenue NW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

    Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record

    On request we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Audrey Pendleton, Associate Commissioner, Evaluation Division, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue NW., Room 502D, Washington, DC 20208-0001. Telephone: (202) 208-7078. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed in this section.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction

    The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a (e)(4) and (e)(11)) requires the Department to publish in the Federal Register this notice of a new system of records maintained by the Department. The Department's regulations implementing the Privacy Act are contained in part 5b of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

    The Privacy Act applies to any record about an individual that is maintained in a system of records from which individually identifying information is retrieved by a unique identifier associated with each individual, such as a name or Social Security number (SSN). The information about each individual is called a “record,” and the system, whether manual or computer-based, is called a “system of records.”

    The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish a notice of a system of records in the Federal Register and to prepare and send a report to OMB whenever the agency publishes a new system of records or makes a significant change to an established system of records. Each agency is also required to send copies of the report to the Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. These reports are intended to permit an evaluation of the probable effect of the proposal on the privacy rights of individuals.

    The system will contain personally identifying information on approximately 38,000 students and 3,600 teachers and other school staff from 12 school districts and will include, but not necessarily be limited to, data on: (1) For students, standardized math and English/Language Arts test scores, age, sex, race/ethnicity, grade, eligibility for free/reduced-price lunches, English Learner status, individualized education program status, school enrollment dates, attendance, discipline records, school engagement, and student behavior, and (2) for teachers and other school staff, school assignments, positions, grades and subjects taught, any available teacher and staff background characteristics, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, certifications, and years of teaching experience, and classroom management and behavior support practices.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: March 19, 2015. Sue Betka, Acting Director, Institute of Education Sciences.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education (Department) publishes a notice of a new system of records to read as follows:

    SYSTEM NUMBER:

    18-13-38

    SYSTEM NAME:

    Impact Evaluation of Training in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Behavior.

    SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

    None.

    SYSTEM LOCATIONS:

    (1) Evaluation Division, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (IES), U.S. Department of Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue NW., Room 502D, Washington, DC 20208-0001.

    (2) MDRC, 16 East 34 Street, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10016-4326 (contractor).

    (3) American Institutes for Research (AIR), 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW., Washington, DC 20007-3835 (subcontractor).

    (4) Decision Information Resources (DIR), Inc., 2600 Southwest Freeway, Suite 900, Houston, TX 77098-4610 (subcontractor).

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    The system of records will include personally identifying information about the students as well as teachers and other school staff who participate in the study. The system will contain records on approximately 38,000 students and 3,600 teachers and other school staff from 12 school districts.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    For students, this information will include, but will not necessarily be limited to, standardized math and English/Language Arts test scores, age, sex, race/ethnicity, grade, eligibility for free/reduced-price lunches, English Learner status, individualized education program status, school enrollment dates, attendance, discipline records, school engagement, and student behavior. For teachers and other school staff, this information will include, but will not necessarily be limited to, school assignments, positions, grades and subjects taught, any available teacher and staff background characteristics, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, certifications, and years of teaching experience, and classroom management and behavior support practices.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    The system of records is authorized under sections 171(b) and 173 of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (ESRA) (20 U.S.C. 9561(b) and 9563) and section 664 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (20 U.S.C. 1464).

    PURPOSE(S):

    The information contained in the records maintained in this system will be used to conduct a rigorous study of the effectiveness of providing school staff with training in multi-tiered systems of supports for behavior.

    The study will address the following central research questions: What are the impacts on school climate, school staff practice, and student outcomes of providing training in MTSS-B that includes universal supports (Tier I)? What are the impacts on school climate, school staff practice, and student outcomes of providing training in MTSS-B that includes universal supports (Tier I) plus targeted interventions for at-risk students (Tier II)? What is the impact of additional training in targeted interventions for at-risk students (Tier II) for schools already trained in MTSS-B that includes universal supports (Tier I)? What are the impacts for relevant subgroups including students with at-risk behavior, students with disabilities, and teachers with less experience? Which strategies are correlated with improvement in student outcomes?

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    The Department may disclose information contained in a record in this system of records under the routine uses listed in this system of records without the consent of the individual if the disclosure is compatible with the purposes for which the record was collected. The Department may make these disclosures on a case-by-case basis or, if the Department has complied with the computer matching requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), under a computer matching agreement. Any disclosure of individually identifiable information from a record in this system must also comply with the requirements of section 183 of the ESRA (20 U.S.C. 9573) providing for confidentiality standards that apply to all collection, reporting, and publication of data by the Institute of Education Sciences. It must also comply with the requirements of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR part 99), which protects the privacy of student education records.

    The Department may disclose records under the “contract disclosure” proposed routine use. If the Department contracts with an entity for the purpose of performing any function that requires disclosure of records in this system to employees of the contractor, the Department may disclose the records to those employees who have received the appropriate level of security clearance from the Department. Before entering into such a contract, the Department will require the contractor to maintain Privacy Act safeguards, as required under 5 U.S.C. 552a(m), with respect to the records in the system.

    DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES:

    None.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE:

    The Department will maintain records on CD-ROM, and the contractor (MDRC) and subcontractors (AIR and DIR) will maintain data for this system on computers and in hard copy.

    RETRIEVABILITY:

    Records in this system will be indexed and retrieved by a unique number assigned to each individual that is cross-referenced by the individual's name on a separate list.

    SAFEGUARDS:

    All physical access to the Department's site and to the sites of the Department's contractor and subcontractors, where this system of records will be maintained, is controlled and monitored by security personnel. The computer system employed by the Department offers a high degree of resistance to tampering and circumvention. This security system limits data access to Department and contract staff on a need-to-know basis and controls individual users' ability to access and alter records within the system.

    The contractor and subcontractors will establish a similar set of procedures at their sites to ensure confidentiality of data. The contractor and subcontractors are required to ensure that information identifying individuals is in files physically separated from other research data and electronic files identifying individuals are separated from other electronic research data files. The contractor will maintain security of the complete set of all master data files and documentation. Access to individually identifiable data will be strictly controlled. All information will be kept in locked file cabinets during nonworking hours, and work on hardcopy data will take place in a single room, except for data entry.

    Physical security of electronic data also will be maintained. Security features that protect project data will include: Password-protected accounts that authorize users to use the contractor's system but to access only specific network directories and network software; user rights and directory and file attributes that limit those who can use particular directories and files and determine how they can use them; and additional security features that the network administrators will establish for projects as needed. The Department's, the contractor's, and the subcontractor's employees who “maintain” (collect, maintain, use, or disseminate) data in this system must comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act and the confidentiality standards in section 183 of the ESRA (20 U.S.C. 9573).

    RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

    Records are maintained and disposed of in accordance with the Department's Records Disposition Schedules (GRS 23, Item 8).

    SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS:

    Associate Commissioner, Evaluation Division, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue NW., Room 502D, Washington, DC 20208-0001.

    NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:

    If you wish to determine whether a record exists regarding you in the system of records, contact the system manager. Your request must meet the requirements of the Department's Privacy Act regulations at 34 CFR 5b.5, including proof of identity.

    RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE:

    If you wish to gain access to a record about you in this system of records, contact the system manager. Your request must meet the requirements of the Department's Privacy Act regulations at 34 CFR 5b.5, including proof of identity.

    CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURE:

    If you wish to contest the content of a record regarding you in the system of records, contact the system manager. Your request must meet the requirements of the Department's Privacy Act regulations at 34 CFR 5b.7, including proof of identity.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    This system will contain records on students as well as teachers and other school staff in an impact evaluation of training in multi-tiered systems of supports for behavior. Data will be obtained through human resource and student administrative records maintained by the school districts, surveys of students as well as teachers and other school staff, observations of classrooms, ratings of student behavior, and individual student testing.

    EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:

    None.

    [FR Doc. 2015-07321 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0036] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Study on Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool AGENCY:

    Office of Planning Evaluation and Policy Development (OPEPD), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 29, 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-0036 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 Erica Lee, (202) 260-1463.

    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: Study on Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool.

    OMB Control Number: 1875-NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 28.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 28.

    Abstract: Policy and Program Studies Service, with OPEPD, contracted with the American Institutes for Research (AIR) to conduct five case studies of programs that are designed to sustain the positive effects of preschools. On-site case studies will include interviews with district officials, principals, Kindergarten teachers, preschool teachers, program funders, and program evaluators.

    Dated: March 24, 2015. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07103 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Investing in Innovation Fund—Development Grants AGENCY:

    Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Overview Information

    Investing in Innovation Fund—Development grants Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2015.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.411P (Development grants Pre-Application) and 84.411C (Development grants Full Application). Note:

    In order to receive an Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) Development grant, an entity must submit a pre-application. The pre-application is intended to reduce the burden of submitting a full application for an i3 Development grant. Pre-applications will be reviewed and scored by peer reviewers using the selection criteria designated in this notice. Entities that submit a highly rated pre-application will be invited to submit a full application for a Development grant; however, any entity that successfully submits a pre-application may choose to submit a full application.

    DATES:

    Pre-Applications Available: April 1, 2015.

    Deadline for Notice of Intent To Submit Pre-Application: April 20, 2015.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Pre-applications: April 29, 2015.

    Full Applications Available: If you are invited to submit a full application for a Development grant, we will transmit the full application package and instructions using the contact information you provide to us in your pre-application. Other pre-applicants who choose to submit a full application may access these items on the i3 Web site at www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Full Applications: Entities that submit a highly rated pre-application, as scored by peer reviewers and as identified by the Department, will be invited to submit a full application for a Development grant. Other pre-applicants may choose to submit a full application. The Department will announce on its Web site the deadline date for transmission of full applications and will also communicate this deadline to applicants in the full application package and instructions.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: 60 calendar days after the deadline date for transmittal of full applications.

    Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The Investing in Innovation Fund (i3), established under section 14007 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provides funding to support (1) local educational agencies (LEAs), and (2) nonprofit organizations in partnership with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a consortium of schools. The i3 program is designed to generate and validate solutions to persistent educational challenges and to support the expansion of effective solutions to serve substantially larger numbers of students. The central design element of the i3 program is its multi-tier structure that links the amount of funding that an applicant may receive to the quality of the evidence supporting the efficacy of the proposed project. Applicants proposing practices supported by limited evidence can receive relatively small grants that support the development and initial evaluation of promising practices and help to identify new solutions to pressing challenges; applicants proposing practices supported by evidence from rigorous evaluations, such as large randomized controlled trials, can receive sizable grants to support expansion across the country. This structure provides incentives for applicants to build evidence of effectiveness of their proposed projects and to address the barriers to serving more students across schools, districts, and States.

    As importantly, all i3 projects are required to generate additional evidence of effectiveness. All i3 grantees must use part of their budgets to conduct independent evaluations (as defined in this notice) of their projects. This ensures that projects funded under the i3 program contribute significantly to improving the information available to practitioners and policymakers about which practices work, for which types of students, and in what contexts.

    The Department awards three types of grants under this program: “Development” grants, “Validation” grants, and “Scale-Up” grants. These grants differ in terms of the level of prior evidence of effectiveness required for consideration of funding, the level of scale the funded project should reach, and, consequently, the amount of funding available to support the project. Development grants provide funding to support the development or testing of practices that are supported by evidence of promise (as defined in this notice) or a strong theory (as defined in this notice) and whose efficacy should be systematically studied. Development grants will support new or substantially more effective practices for addressing widely shared challenges. Development projects are novel and significant nationally, not projects that simply implement existing practices in additional locations or support needs that are primarily local in nature. All Development grantees must evaluate the effectiveness of the project at the level of scale proposed in the application. This notice invites applications for Development grants only. The Department anticipates publishing notices inviting applications for the other types of i3 grants (Validation and Scale-Up grants) in the spring of 2015.

    We remind LEAs of the continuing applicability of the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for students who may be served under i3 grants. Any grants in which LEAs participate must be consistent with the rights, protections, and processes established under IDEA for students who are receiving special education and related services or are in the process of being evaluated to determine their eligibility for such services.

    As described later in this notice, in connection with making competitive grant awards, an applicant is required, as a condition of receiving assistance under this program, to make civil rights assurances, including an assurance that its program or activity will comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended and the Department's section 504 implementing regulations, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability. Regardless of whether a student with disabilities is specifically targeted as a “high-need student” (as defined in this notice) in a particular grant application, recipients are required to comply with all legal nondiscrimination requirements, including, but not limited to the obligation to ensure that students with disabilities are not denied access to the benefits of the recipient's program because of their disability. The Department also enforces Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as the regulations implementing Title II of the ADA, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities.

    Furthermore, Title VI and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin, and sex, respectively. On December 2, 2011, the Departments of Education and Justice jointly issued guidance that explains how educational institutions can promote student diversity or avoid racial isolation within the framework of Title VI (e.g., through consideration of the racial demographics of neighborhoods when drawing assignment zones for schools or through targeted recruiting efforts). The “Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity and Avoid Racial Isolation in Elementary and Secondary Schools” is available on the Department's Web site at www.ed.gov/ocr/docs/guidance-ese-201111.pdf.

    Background: Through its competitions, the i3 program strives to improve the academic achievement of high-need students by accelerating the identification of promising solutions to pressing challenges in kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) education, supporting the evaluation of the efficacy of such solutions, and developing new approaches to scaling effective practices to serve more students. The i3 program aims to build a portfolio of solutions and corresponding evidence regarding different approaches to addressing critical challenges in education. When selecting the priorities for a given competition, the Department considers several factors, including the Department's policy priorities, the need for new solutions in a particular priority area, the extent of the existing evidence in the field supporting effective practices in a particular priority area, whether other available funding exists for a particular priority area, and the results and lessons learned from funded projects from prior i3 competitions. We note that in previous i3 Development competitions, the Department has included explicit priority areas for supporting students with disabilities and English learners. Most of the projects in i3's current portfolio are supporting these students in some way. Our approach for the FY 2015 competition, as further described below, is to focus on projects that are designed to test new or otherwise promising approaches that may impact a broad spectrum of students, including students with disabilities and English learners. Although the FY 2015 i3 Development competition does not include specific priorities for supporting English learners or students with disabilities, we require applicants to serve high-need student populations, and we encourage them to consider ways in which their proposed projects could serve students with disabilities or English learners.

    We include five absolute priorities in the FY 2015 Development competition. We include absolute priorities that are intended to represent persistent challenges in education, new areas of policy focus in which research is scarce, and areas we would like to strengthen the current portfolio of i3 grantee projects. Applicants applying under the Serving Rural Communities priority (Absolute Priority 5) must also address one of the other four absolute priorities established for the FY 2015 i3 Development competition, as described below, while serving students enrolled in rural LEAs (as defined in this notice). We also include one competitive preference priority for novice i3 applicants.

    First, we include an absolute priority that asks applicants to increase the number and percentage of highly effective principals. School leaders play an essential role in shaping school cultures, aligning parents and educators around shared goals, and, ultimately, influencing student achievement. Yet preparation programs and support for school leaders are often lacking. Preparation programs, for example, sometimes lack rigorous screening and selection entry requirements, offer courses that are not aligned with standards of practice, and provide insufficient clinical experiences for candidates. Furthermore, current principals indicate that they are not reliably provided the necessary support and development opportunities that enable them to shape a strong professional community and collective responsibility for student learning. We encourage applicants addressing this priority to consider strategies that improve hiring, support, and retention efforts for principals with the ultimate outcome of improving outcomes for high-need students (as defined in this notice). We think these areas are important to explore further, as the research base on effective practices for training, supporting, and retaining strong leaders is limited.

    Second, we include an absolute priority on improving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Research shows that ensuring that all students can access and excel in STEM fields is essential to our Nation's economy and future prosperity.1 Careers in STEM fields are growing, as are the skills required to compete for and succeed in these specialized jobs.2 In addition, STEM literacy is beneficial even for those who are not directly involved in STEM professions. For this priority, we seek projects that reach students beyond the boundaries of the traditional school day (e.g., during out-of-school time or extended-day programs) and provide meaningful, real-world STEM learning experiences that will inspire students' interest in STEM and give them the tools they need to meet the demands of dynamic labor markets.

    1 Langdon, D.; McKittrick, G.; Beede, D.; Khan, B.; and Doms, M., Office of the Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Commerce. STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future (July 2011). Available at: http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/stemfinalyjuly14_1.pdf.

    2 Chairman's Staff of the Joint Economic Committee. Calculations using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Projections: 2010-20. Table 1.7 Occupational Employment and Job Openings Data, Projected 2010-20, and Worker Characteristics, 2010. February 2012. Available at: http://bls.gov/emp/. For the purposes of this calculation, STEM occupations are defined as in the U.S. Department of Commerce's Economics and Statistics Administration report, STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future. ESA Issue Brief #03-11. July 2011.

    Third, we include an absolute priority that supports the use of technology in the classroom to support student learning and inform teacher professional development. In this priority, we seek projects that use technological tools that enable the development, visualization, and rapid analysis of data to inform instructional practices and improve learning outcomes. Incorporating real-time data into instructional practice provides students with the individualized support they need to be successful and can also be leveraged to provide educators with targeted support that helps them meet students' needs. We seek projects that will examine the effectiveness of various approaches to providing student and teacher support and build the research base.

    Fourth, we include an absolute priority on influencing the development of non-cognitive factors. Non-cognitive factors may encompass many skills and behaviors, including but not limited to academic behaviors, academic mindset, perseverance, self-regulation, social and emotional skills, and approaches toward learning strategies. A promising body of research suggests that non-cognitive factors play an important role in students' academic, career, and life outcomes.3 Notably, some initial interventions focused on enhancing these skills and behaviors are seemingly scalable and lower-cost as compared to more conventional education interventions—and have a disproportionately positive impact on students most in need.4 As interest in this area grows, we think it is important to identify solutions and build evidence to determine effective ways to help students develop such skills and behaviors (e.g., interventions that directly target students, support changes in educators' instructional practices, or redesign learning environments), as well as how to measure such skills and behaviors in valid and reliable ways, and to demonstrate how improvement in such skills and behaviors affects overall student outcomes.

    3 The University of Chicago Consortium of Chicago School Research (June 2012). Teaching Adolescents to Become Learners: The Role of Noncognitive Factors in Shaping School Performance. Available at: https://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Noncognitive%20Report.pdf.

    4 Walton, GM; Cohen, GL. (2011) A Brief Social-Belonging Intervention Improves Academic and Health Outcomes of Minority Students. Science, 331 (6023): 1447-1451. and Cohen, G.L., Garcia, J., Purdie-Vaugns, V., Apfel, N., & Brzustoski, P. (2009). Recursive processes in self-affirmation: Intervening to close the minority achievement gap. Science, 324, 400-403.

    Fifth, we include an absolute priority that focuses on serving rural communities. Students living in rural communities face unique challenges. Applicants applying under this priority must also address one of the other four absolute priorities established for the FY 2015 i3 Development competition, as described above, while serving students enrolled in rural LEAs (as defined in this notice).

    Finally, in order to expand the reach of the i3 program and encourage entities that have not previously received an i3 grant to apply, the Department includes a competitive preference priority for novice i3 applicants. A novice i3 applicant is an applicant that has never received a grant under the i3 program. An applicant must identify whether it is a novice applicant when completing the applicant information sheet. Instructions on how to complete the applicant information sheet are included in the application package.

    In summary, applications must address one of the first four absolute priorities for this competition and propose projects designed to implement practices that serve students who are in grades K-12 at some point during the funding period. If an applicant chooses to also address the absolute priority regarding students in rural LEAs, that applicant must also address one of the other four absolute priorities established for the FY 2015 i3 Development competition, as described above, while serving students enrolled in rural LEAs (as defined in this notice). Applicants must be able to demonstrate that the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice included in their applications is supported by either evidence of promise (as defined in this notice) or a strong theory (as defined in this notice). Applicants should carefully review all of the requirements in the Eligibility Information section of this notice for instructions on how to demonstrate the proposed project is supported by evidence of promise (as defined in this notice) or a strong theory (as defined in this notice) and for information on the other eligibility and program requirements.

    The i3 program includes a statutory requirement for a private-sector match for all i3 grantees. For Development grants, an applicant must obtain matching funds or in-kind donations from the private sector equal to at least 15 percent of its grant award. Each highest-rated applicant, as identified by the Department following peer review of the applications, must submit evidence of at least 50 percent of the required private-sector match prior to the awarding of an i3 grant. An applicant must provide evidence of the remaining 50 percent of the required private-sector match no later than three months after the project start date (i.e., for the FY 2015 competition, three months after January 1, 2016, or by April 1, 2016). The grant will be terminated if the grantee does not secure its private-sector match by the established deadline.

    This notice also includes selection criteria for the FY 2015 Development competition that are designed to ensure that applications selected for funding have the best potential to generate substantial improvements in student achievement (and other key outcomes), and include well-articulated plans for the implementation and evaluation of the proposed projects. Applicants should review the selection criteria and submission instructions carefully to ensure their applications address this year's criteria.

    An entity that submits a full application for a Development grant must include the following information in its application: An estimate of the number of students to be served by the project; evidence of the applicant's ability to implement and appropriately evaluate the proposed project; and information about its capacity (e.g., management capacity, financial resources, qualified personnel) to implement the project at the proposed level of scale. We recognize that LEAs are not typically responsible for taking their processes, products, strategies, or practices to scale; however, all applicants can and should develop plans to potentially take them to scale, as well as partner with others to disseminate their effective processes, products, strategies, and practices.

    The Department will screen applications that are submitted for Development grants in accordance with the requirements in this notice and determine which applications meet eligibility and other requirements. Peer reviewers will review all applications for Development grants that are submitted by the established deadline.

    Applicants should note, however, that we may screen for eligibility at multiple points during the competition process, including before and after peer review; and applicants that are determined to be ineligible will not receive a grant award regardless of peer reviewer scores or comments. If we determine that a Development grant application is not supported by evidence of promise (as defined in this notice) or a strong theory (as defined in this notice), or that the applicant does not demonstrate the required prior record of improvement, or does not meet any other i3 requirement, the application will not be considered for funding.

    Priorities: This competition includes five absolute priorities and one competitive preference priority. Absolute Priorities 2 and 5 and the Competitive Preference Priority are from the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this program, published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2013 (78 FR 18681) (the “2013 i3 NFP”). Absolute Priorities 1, 3, and 4 are from the Department's notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions (Supplemental Priorities), published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73425).

    Absolute Priorities: For FY 2015 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet one of these priorities.

    Under the Development grant competition, each of the five absolute priorities constitutes its own funding category. The Secretary intends to award grants under each absolute priority for which applications of sufficient quality are submitted.

    An applicant for a Development grant must choose one of the five absolute priorities to address in its pre-application, and full application, if the applicant is invited to, or chooses to, submit a full application. Both pre-applications and full applications will be peer reviewed and scored; and because scores will be rank ordered by absolute priority, it is essential that an applicant clearly identify the specific absolute priority that the proposed project addresses. It is also important to note that applicants who choose to submit an application under the absolute priority for Serving Rural Communities must identify an additional absolute priority. Regardless, the peer-reviewed scores for applications submitted under the Serving Rural Communities priority will be ranked with other applications under its priority, and not included in the ranking for the additional priority that the applicant identified. This design helps us ensure that applicants under the Serving Rural Communities priority receive an “apples to apples” comparison with other rural applicants.

    These priorities are:

    Absolute Priority 1— Improving the Effectiveness of Principals

    Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that are designed to increase the number and percentage of highly effective principals by implementing practices or strategies that support districts in hiring, evaluating, supporting, and retaining effective principals.

    For the purposes of this priority, principal effectiveness must be measured using a high-quality principal evaluation and support system (as defined in this notice).

    Absolute Priority 2—Improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education

    Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address the following priority area:

    Expanding high-quality out-of-school and extended-day activities, including extending the day, week, or year, or before- or after- school, or summer learning programs, that provide students with opportunities for deliberate practice that increase STEM learning, engagement, and expertise.

    Absolute Priority 3— Leveraging Technology To Support Instructional Practice and Professional Development

    Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that are designed to leverage technology through using data platforms that enable the development, visualization, and rapid analysis of data to inform and improve learning outcomes, while also protecting privacy in accordance with applicable laws.

    Absolute Priority 4—Influencing the Development of Non-Cognitive Factors

    Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that are designed to improve students' mastery of non-cognitive skills and behaviors (such as academic behaviors, academic mindset, perseverance, self-regulation, social and emotional skills, and approaches toward learning strategies) and enhance student motivation and engagement in learning.

    Absolute Priority 5—Serving Rural Communities

    Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address one of the absolute priorities established for the 2015 Development i3 competition and under which the majority of students to be served are enrolled in rural local educational agencies (as defined in this notice).

    Competitive Preference Priority: For FY 2015 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, this priority is a competitive preference priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we award an additional three points to an application that meets the competitive preference priority.

    The priority is:

    Competitive Preference Priority—Supporting Novice i3 Applicants (Zero or 3 Points)

    Eligible applicants that have never directly received a grant under this program.

    Definitions

    The definition for “high-quality principal evaluation and support system” is from the Supplemental Priorities. The definitions of “evidence of promise,” “logic model,” “national level,” “quasi-experimental design study,” “randomized controlled trial,” “regional level,” “relevant outcome,” “strong theory” and “What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards” are from 34 CFR 77.1. All other definitions are from the 2013 i3 NFP. We may apply these definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.

    Consortium of schools means two or more public elementary or secondary schools acting collaboratively for the purpose of applying for and implementing an i3 grant jointly with an eligible nonprofit organization.

    Evidence of promise means there is empirical evidence to support the theoretical linkage(s) between at least one critical component and at least one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice. Specifically, evidence of promise means the conditions in both paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this definition are met:

    (i) There is at least one study that is a—

    (A) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias;

    (B) Quasi-experimental design study that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; or

    (C) Randomized controlled trial that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations.

    (ii) The study referenced in paragraph (i) of this definition found a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger) favorable association between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.

    High-minority school is defined by a school's LEA in a manner consistent with the corresponding State's Teacher Equity Plan, as required by section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). The applicant must provide, in its i3 application, the definition(s) used.

    High-need student means a student at risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students who are living in poverty, who attend high-minority schools (as defined in this notice), who are far below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are English learners.

    High school graduation rate means a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1) and may also include an extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(v) if the State in which the proposed project is implemented has been approved by the Secretary to use such a rate under Title I of the ESEA.

    High-quality principal evaluation and support system means a system that provides for continuous improvement of instruction; differentiates performance using at least three performance levels; uses multiple valid measures to determine performance levels, including data on Student Growth as a significant factor and other measures of professional practice; evaluates principals on a regular basis; provides clear and timely feedback that identifies needs and guides professional development; is developed with teacher and principal involvement; and is used to inform personnel decisions.

    Independent evaluation means that the evaluation is designed and carried out independent of, but in coordination with, any employees of the entities who develop a process, product, strategy, or practice and are implementing it.

    Innovation means a process, product, strategy, or practice that improves (or is expected to improve) significantly upon the outcomes reached with status quo options and that can ultimately reach widespread effective usage.

    Logic model (also referred to as theory of action) means a well-specified conceptual framework that identifies key components of the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice (i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the relationships among the key components and outcomes, theoretically and operationally.

    National level describes the level of scope or effectiveness of a process, product, strategy, or practice that is able to be effective in a wide variety of communities, including rural and urban areas, as well as with different groups (e.g., economically disadvantaged, racial and ethnic groups, migrant populations, individuals with disabilities, English learners, and individuals of each gender).

    Nonprofit organization means an entity that meets the definition of “nonprofit” under 34 CFR 77.1(c), or an institution of higher education as defined by section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.

    Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental design by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations (but not What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations).

    Randomized controlled trial means a study that employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, schools, or districts to receive the intervention being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the intervention (the control group). The estimated effectiveness of the intervention is the difference between the average outcomes for the treatment group and for the control group. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations.

    Regional level describes the level of scope or effectiveness of a process, product, strategy, or practice that is able to serve a variety of communities within a State or multiple States, including rural and urban areas, as well as with different groups (e.g., economically disadvantaged, racial and ethnic groups, migrant populations, individuals with disabilities, English learners, and individuals of each gender). For an LEA-based project to be considered a regional-level project, a process, product, strategy, or practice must serve students in more than one LEA, unless the process, product, strategy, or practice is implemented in a State in which the State educational agency is the sole educational agency for all schools.

    Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) (or the ultimate outcome if not related to students) the proposed process, product, strategy or practice is designed to improve; consistent with the specific goals of a program.

    Rural local educational agency means a local educational agency (LEA) that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized under Title VI, Part B of the ESEA. Eligible applicants may determine whether a particular LEA is eligible for these programs by referring to information on the Department's Web site at www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/reap.html.

    Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice that includes a logic model (as defined in this notice).

    Student achievement means—

    (a) For grades and subjects in which assessments are required under ESEA section 1111(b)(3): (1) A student's score on such assessments and may include (2) other measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph (b), provided they are rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA.

    (b) For grades and subjects in which assessments are not required under ESEA section 1111(b)(3): Alternative measures of student learning and performance such as student results on pre-tests, end-of-course tests, and objective performance-based assessments; student learning objectives; student performance on English language proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA.

    Student growth means the change in student achievement (as defined in this notice) for an individual student between two or more points in time. An applicant may also include other measures that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.

    What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards means the standards set forth in the What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 3.0, March 2014), which can be found at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.

    Program Authority:

    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Division A, Section 14007, Pub. L. 111-5.

    Applicable Regulations: (a) EDGAR in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) 2013 i3 NFP (78 FR 18681). (e) The Supplemental Priorities (79 FR 73425).

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Cooperative agreements or discretionary grants.

    Estimated Available Funds: $112,400,000.

    These estimated available funds are the total available for all three types of grants under the i3 program (Development, Validation, and Scale-up grants). Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2016 or later years from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.

    Estimated Range of Awards

    Development grants: Up to $3,000,000.

    Validation grants: Up to $12,000,000.

    Scale-up grants: Up to $20,000,000.

    Note:

    The upper limit of the range of awards (e.g., $3,000,000 for development grants) is referred to as the “maximum amount of awards” in section 5 of this notice.

    Estimated Average Size of Awards

    Development grants: $3,000,000.

    Validation grants: $11,500,000.

    Scale-up grants: $19,000,000.

    Estimated Number of Awards

    Development grants: 9-11 awards.

    Validation grants: 2-4 awards.

    Scale-up grants: 0-1 awards.

    Note:

    The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

    Project Period: 36-60 months.

    III. Eligibility Information

    1. Innovations that Improve Achievement for High-Need Students: All grantees must implement practices that are designed to improve student achievement (as defined in this notice) or student growth (as defined in this notice), close achievement gaps, decrease dropout rates, increase high school graduation rates (as defined in this notice), or increase college enrollment and completion rates for high-need students (as defined in this notice).

    2. Innovations that Serve Kindergarten-through-Grade-12 (K-12) Students: All grantees must implement practices that serve students who are in grades K-12 at some point during the funding period. To meet this requirement, projects that serve early learners (i.e., infants, toddlers, or preschoolers) must provide services or supports that extend into kindergarten or later years, and projects that serve postsecondary students must provide services or supports during the secondary grades or earlier.

    3. Eligible Applicants: Entities eligible to apply for i3 grants include either of the following:

    (a) An LEA.

    (b) A partnership between a nonprofit organization and—

    (1) One or more LEAs; or

    (2) A consortium of schools.

    Statutory Eligibility Requirements: Except as specifically set forth in the Note about Eligibility for an Eligible Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit Organization that follows, to be eligible for an award, an eligible applicant must—

    (a)(1) Have significantly closed the achievement gaps between groups of students described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA (economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with limited English proficiency, students with disabilities); or

    (2) Have demonstrated success in significantly increasing student academic achievement for all groups of students described in that section;

    (b) Have made significant improvements in other areas, such as high school graduation rates (as defined in this notice) or increased recruitment and placement of high-quality teachers and principals, as demonstrated with meaningful data;

    (c) Demonstrate that it has established one or more partnerships with the private sector, which may include philanthropic organizations, and that organizations in the private sector will provide matching funds in order to help bring results to scale; and

    (d) In the case of an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization, provide in the application the names of the LEAs with which the nonprofit organization will partner, or the names of the schools in the consortium with which it will partner. If an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization intends to partner with additional LEAs or schools that are not named in the application, it must describe in the application the demographic and other characteristics of these LEAs and schools and the process it will use to select them.

    Note:

    An entity submitting an application should provide, in Appendix C, under “Other Attachments Form,” of its application, information addressing the eligibility requirements described in this section. An applicant must provide, in its application, sufficient supporting data or other information to allow the Department to determine whether the applicant has met the eligibility requirements. Note that in order to address the statutory eligibility requirement above, applicants must provide data that demonstrate a change. In other words, applicants must provide data for at least two points in time when addressing this requirement in Appendix C of their applications. If the Department determines that an applicant has provided insufficient information in its application, the applicant will not have an opportunity to provide additional information.

    Note about LEA Eligibility:

    For purposes of this program, an LEA is an LEA located within one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

    Note about Eligibility for an Eligible Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit Organization:

    The authorizing statute specifies that an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization meets the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the eligibility requirements for this program if the nonprofit organization has a record of significantly improving student achievement, attainment, or retention. For an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization, the nonprofit organization must demonstrate that it has a record of significantly improving student achievement, attainment, or retention through its record of work with an LEA or schools. Therefore, an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization does not necessarily need to include as a partner for its i3 grant an LEA or a consortium of schools that meets the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the eligibility requirements in this notice.

    In addition, the authorizing statute specifies that an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of the eligibility requirements in this notice if the eligible applicant demonstrates that it will meet the requirement for private-sector matching.

    4. Cost Sharing or Matching: To be eligible for an award, an applicant must demonstrate that one or more private-sector organizations, which may include philanthropic organizations, will provide matching funds in order to help bring project results to scale. An eligible Development applicant must obtain matching funds, or in-kind donations, equal to at least 15 percent of its Federal grant award. The highest-rated eligible applicants must submit evidence of 50 percent of the required private-sector matching funds following the peer review of applications. A Federal i3 award will not be made unless the applicant provides adequate evidence that the 50 percent of the required private-sector match has been committed or the Secretary approves the eligible applicant's request to reduce the matching-level requirement. An applicant must provide evidence of the remaining 50 percent of required private-sector match three months after the project start date.

    The Secretary may consider decreasing the matching requirement on a case-by-case basis, and only in the most exceptional circumstances. An eligible applicant that anticipates being unable to meet the full amount of the private-sector matching requirement must include in its application a request that the Secretary reduce the matching-level requirement, along with a statement of the basis for the request.

    Note:

    An applicant that does not provide a request for a reduction of the matching-level requirement in its full application may not submit that request at a later time.

    5. Other: The Secretary establishes the following requirements for the i3 program. These requirements are from the 2013 i3 NFP. We may apply these requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.

    Evidence Standards: To be eligible for an award, an application for a Development grant must be supported by evidence of promise (as defined in this notice) or a strong theory (as defined in this notice). Applicants must identify in Appendix D and the Applicant Information Sheet if their evidence is supported by evidence of promise or a strong theory.

    Note:

    In Appendix D, under the “Other Attachments Form,” an entity that submits a full application should provide information addressing one of the required evidence standards for Development grants. This information should include a description of the intervention(s) the applicant plans to implement and the intended student outcomes that the intervention(s) attempts to impact.

    Applicants must identify in Appendix D and the Applicant Information Sheet if their evidence is supported by evidence of promise or a strong theory. An applicant submitting its Development grant application under the evidence of promise standard should identify up to two study citations to be reviewed for the purposes of meeting the i3 evidence standard requirement and include those citations in Appendix D. In addition, the applicant should specify the intervention that they plan to implement, the findings within the citations that the applicant is requesting be considered as evidence of promise, including page number(s) of specific tables if applicable. The Department will not consider a study citation that an applicant fails to clearly identify for review.

    An applicant must either ensure that all evidence is available to the Department from publicly available sources and provide links or other guidance indicating where it is available; or, in the full application, include copies of evidence in Appendix D. If the Department determines that an applicant has provided insufficient information, the applicant will not have an opportunity to provide additional information at a later time.

    Note:

    The evidence standards apply to the prior research that supports the effectiveness of the proposed project. The i3 program does not restrict the source of prior research providing evidence for the proposed project. As such, an applicant could cite prior research in Appendix D for studies that were conducted by another entity (i.e., an entity that is not the applicant) so long as the prior research studies cited in the application are relevant to the effectiveness of the proposed project. If an applicant applies under the evidence of promise standard but does not meet it, their application will not be reviewed under the strong theory standard.

    Funding Categories: An applicant will be considered for an award only for the type of i3 grant (i.e., Development, Validation, and Scale-up grants) for which it applies. An applicant may not submit an application for the same proposed project under more than one type of grant.

    Limit on Grant Awards: (a) No grantee may receive more than two new grant awards of any type under the i3 program in a single year; (b) in any two-year period, no grantee may receive more than one new Scale-up or Validation grant; and (c) no grantee may receive in a single year new i3 grant awards that total an amount greater than the sum of the maximum amount of funds for a Scale-up grant and the maximum amount of funds for a Development grant for that year. For example, in a year when the maximum award value for a Scale-up grant is $20 million and the maximum award value for a Development grant is $3 million, no grantee may receive in a single year new grants totaling more than $23 million.

    Subgrants: In the case of an eligible applicant that is a partnership between a nonprofit organization and (1) one or more LEAs or (2) a consortium of schools, the partner serving as the applicant and, if funded, as the grantee, may make subgrants to one or more entities in the partnership.

    Evaluation: The grantee must conduct an independent evaluation (as defined in this notice) of its project. This evaluation must estimate the impact of the i3-supported practice (as implemented at the proposed level of scale) on a relevant outcome (as defined in this notice). The grantee must make broadly available digitally and free of charge, through formal (e.g., peer-reviewed journals) or informal (e.g., newsletters) mechanisms, the results of any evaluations it conducts of its funded activities.

    In addition, the grantee and its independent evaluator must agree to cooperate with any technical assistance provided by the Department or its contractor and comply with the requirements of any evaluation of the program conducted by the Department. This includes providing to the Department, within 100 days of a grant award, an updated comprehensive evaluation plan in a format and using such tools as the Department may require. Grantees must update this evaluation plan at least annually to reflect any changes to the evaluation. All of these updates must be consistent with the scope and objectives of the approved application.

    Communities of Practice: Grantees must participate in, organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, communities of practice for the i3 program. A community of practice is a group of grantees that agrees to interact regularly to solve a persistent problem or improve practice in an area that is important to them.

    Management Plan: Within 100 days of a grant award, the grantee must provide an updated comprehensive management plan for the approved project in a format and using such tools as the Department may require. This management plan must include detailed information about implementation of the first year of the grant, including key milestones, staffing details, and other information that the Department may require. It must also include a complete list of performance metrics, including baseline measures and annual targets. The grantee must update this management plan at least annually to reflect implementation of subsequent years of the project.

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain an application package via the Internet or from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address: www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html. To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the following: ED Pubs, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (703) 605-6794.

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734.

    You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: www.EDPubs.gov or at its email address: [email protected]

    If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.411P (for pre-applications) or 84.411C (for full applications).

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the person or team listed under Accessible Format in section VIII of this notice.

    2.a. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition.

    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Submit Application: April 20, 2015.

    We will be able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing grant applications if we know the approximate number of applicants that intend to apply for funding under this competition. Therefore, the Secretary strongly encourages each potential applicant to notify us of the applicant's intent to submit an application by completing a Web-based form. When completing this form, applicants will provide (1) the applicant organization's name and address and (2) the one absolute priority the applicant intends to address. Applicants may access this form online at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/9QXGZS7. Applicants that do not complete this form may still submit a pre-application. Page Limit: For the pre-application, the project narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your pre-application. For the full application, the project narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your full applications.

    Pre-Application page limit: Applicants should limit the pre-application narrative to no more than seven pages.

    Full-Application page limit: Applicants submitting a full application should limit the application narrative [Part III] for a Development grant application to no more than 25 pages. Applicants are also strongly encouraged not to include lengthy appendices for the full application that contain information that they were unable to include in the narrative. Aside from the required forms, applicants should not include appendices in their pre-applications. Applicants for both pre- and full applications should use the following standards:

    • A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

    • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions.

    • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

    • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

    The page limit for the full application does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support for the full application. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section [Part III] of the full application.

    b. Submission of Proprietary Information:

    Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the i3 program, some applications may include business information that applicants consider proprietary. The Department's regulations define “business information” in 34 CFR 5.11.

    Consistent with the process followed in the prior i3 competitions, we plan on posting the project narrative section of funded i3 applications on the Department's Web site so you may wish to request confidentiality of business information. Identifying proprietary information in the submitted application will help facilitate this public disclosure process.

    Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you feel is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).

    3. Submission Dates and Times:

    Pre-Applications Available: April 1, 2015.

    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Submit Pre-Application: April 20, 2015.

    Informational Meetings: The i3 program intends to hold Webinars designed to provide technical assistance to interested applicants for all three types of grants. Detailed information regarding these meetings will be provided on the i3 Web site at www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Pre-Applications: April 29, 2015.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Full Applications: The Department will announce on its Web site the deadline date for transmission of full applications for Development grants. Under the pre-application process, peer reviewers will read and score the shorter pre-application against an abbreviated set of selection criteria, and entities that submit highly rated pre-applications will be invited to submit full applications for a Development grant. Other pre-applicants may choose to submit a full application.

    Pre- and full applications for Development grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7. Other Submission Requirements of this notice.

    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

    Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review of Full Applications: 60 calendar days after the deadline date for transmittal of full applications.

    4. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition.

    5. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department of Education, you must—

    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;

    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and

    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.

    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.

    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.

    The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

    Note:

    Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.

    In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.

    7. Other Submission Requirements: Applications for grants for the i3 program must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.

    a. Electronic Submission of Applications

    Applications (both pre- and full applications) for Development grants under the i3 program, CFDA Number 84.411P (pre-applications) and CFDA Number 84.411C (full applications), must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.

    You may access the electronic grant application for the i3 program at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.411, not 84.411P or 84.411C).

    Please note the following:

    • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

    • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.

    • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.

    • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at www.G5.gov.

    • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.

    • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.

    • You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.

    • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.

    • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).

    • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.

    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues With the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.

    If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.

    If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted.

    Note:

    The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because--

    • You do not have access to the Internet; or

    • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and

    • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.

    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.

    Address and mail or fax your statement to: Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4C107, Washington, DC 20202-5930. FAX: (202) 205-5631.

    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.

    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.411C or 84.411P), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    Note:

    Entities submitting pre-applications for Development grants will use CFDA Number 84.411P, and entities submitting full applications for Development grants will use CFDA Number 84.411C.

    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

    (1) A private metered postmark.

    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

    If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.

    Note:

    The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.411C or 84.411P), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    Note:

    Entities submitting pre-applications for Development grants will use 84.411P, and entities submitting full applications for Development grants will use 84.411C.

    The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:

    If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

    V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: This competition has separate selection criteria for pre-applications and full applications. The selection criteria for the Development competition are from the 2013 i3 NFP and 34 CFR 75.210, and are listed below.

    The points assigned to each criterion are indicated in the parentheses next to the criterion. An applicant may earn up to a total of 20 points based on the selection criteria for the pre-application. An applicant may earn up to a total of 100 points based on the selection criteria for the full application.

    Note:

    An applicant must provide information on how its proposed project addresses the selection criteria in the project narrative section of its application. In responding to the selection criteria, applicants submitting both pre- and full applications should keep in mind that peer reviewers may consider only the information provided in the written application when scoring and commenting on the application. Therefore, applicants should draft their responses with the goal of helping peer reviewers understand the following:

    • What the applicant is proposing to do, including the absolute priority under which the applicant intends the application to be reviewed;

    • How the proposed project will improve upon existing processes, products, strategies, or practices for addressing similar needs;

    • What the outcomes of the project will be if it is successful; and

    • What procedures are in place for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.

    Selection Criteria for the Development Grant Pre-Application A. Significance (Up to 10 Points)

    In determining the significance of the project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the proposed project involves the development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies. (34 CFR 75.210)

    B. Quality of Project Design (Up to 10 Points)

    In determining the quality of the proposed project design, the Secretary considers the extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the project are clearly specified and measured. (34 CFR 75.210)

    Selection Criteria for the Development Grant Full Application A. Significance (Up to 35 Points)

    In determining the significance of the project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (1) The extent to which the proposed project involves the development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies.

    (2) The national significance of the proposed project.

    (3) The potential replicability of the proposed project or strategies, including, as appropriate, the potential for implementation in a variety of settings. (34 CFR 75.210)

    B. Quality of the Project Design and Management Plan (Up to 45 Points)

    In determining the quality of the proposed project design, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the project are clearly specified and measurable.

    (2) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.

    (3) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.

    (4) The mechanisms the applicant will use to broadly disseminate information on its project so as to support further development or replication. (34 CFR 75.210)

    C. Quality of Project Evaluation (Up to 20 Points)

    In determining the quality of the project evaluation to be conducted, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (1) The clarity and importance of the key questions to be addressed by the project evaluation, and the appropriateness of the methods for how each question will be addressed. (2013 i3 NFP)

    (2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well-implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations. (34 CFR 75.210)

    (3) The extent to which the proposed project plan includes sufficient resources to carry out the project evaluation effectively. (2013 i3 NFP)

    Note:

    Applicants are encouraged to design an evaluation that will report findings on English Learners, students with disabilities, and other subgroups. Additionally, applicants may wish to review the following technical assistance resources on evaluation: (1) WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1; and (2) IES/NCEE Technical Methods papers: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/. In addition, we invite applicants to view an optional Webinar recording that was hosted by the Institute of Education Sciences on March 3, 2015. This Webinar discussed strategies for designing and executing well-designed quasi-experimental design studies. Applicants interested in viewing this Webinar may find more information at the following Web site: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/news.aspx?sid=23.

    2. Review and Selection Process: In order to receive an i3 Development grant, an entity must submit a pre-application. The pre-application will be reviewed and scored by peer reviewers using the two selection criteria established in this notice. We will inform the entities that submitted pre-applications of the results of the peer review process. Entities with highly rated pre-applications will be invited to submit full applications. Other pre-applicants may choose to submit a full application. Scores received on pre-applications will not carry over to the review of the full application.

    As described earlier in this notice, before making awards, we will screen applications submitted in accordance with the requirements in this notice to determine which applications have met eligibility and other statutory requirements. This screening process may occur at various stages of the pre-application and full application processes; applicants that are determined ineligible will not receive a grant, regardless of peer reviewer scores or comments.

    For the pre- and full application review processes, we will use independent peer reviewers with varied backgrounds and professions including pre-kindergarten-grade 12 teachers and principals, college and university educators, researchers and evaluators, social entrepreneurs, strategy consultants, grant makers and managers, and others with education expertise. All reviewers will be thoroughly screened for conflicts of interest to ensure a fair and competitive review process.

    Peer reviewers will read, prepare a written evaluation, and score the assigned pre-applications and full applications, using the respective selection criteria provided in this notice. For Development grant pre-applications, peer reviewers will review and score the applications based on the two selection criteria for pre-applications listed in the Selection Criteria for the Development Grant Pre-Application section of this notice. For full applications submitted for Development grants, peer reviewers will review and score the applications based on the three selection criteria for full applications listed in the Selection Criteria for the Development Grant Full Application section of this notice. If an eligible applicant chooses to address the competitive preference priority (Supporting Novice i3 Applicants) to earn competitive preference priority points, the Department will review its list of previous i3 grantees in scoring this competitive preference priority.

    We remind potential applicants that, in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    3. Special Conditions: Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

    VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

    3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

    4. Performance Measures: The overall purpose of the i3 program is to expand the implementation of, and investment in, innovative practices that are demonstrated to have an impact on improving student achievement or student growth for high-need students. We have established several performance measures for the i3 Development grants.

    Short-term performance measures: (1) The percentage of grantees whose projects are being implemented with fidelity to the approved design; (2) the percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a Development grant with ongoing evaluations that provide evidence of their promise for improving student outcomes; (3) the percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a Development grant with ongoing evaluations that are providing high-quality implementation data and performance feedback that allow for periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes; and (4) the cost per student actually served by the grant.

    Long-term performance measures: (1) The percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a Development grant with a completed evaluation that provides evidence of their promise for improving student outcomes; (2) the percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a Development grant with a completed evaluation that provides information about the key elements and approach of the project so as to facilitate further development, replication, or testing in other settings; and (3) the cost per student for programs, practices, or strategies that were proven promising at improving educational outcomes for students.

    5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application. In making a continuation grant, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    VII. Agency Contact FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4C107, Washington, DC 20202-5930. Telephone: (202) 453-7122. FAX: (202) 205-5631 or by email: [email protected]

    If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    VIII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to either program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Nadya Chinoy Dabby, Associate Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07213 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Staff Attendance at South Carolina Regional Transmission Planning Meeting

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of its staff may attend the meeting of the South Carolina Regional Planning (SCRTP) Stakeholder Group, as noted below. Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.

    SCRTP March 30, 2015 (10 a.m.-1 p.m.), Old Santee Canal Park, Interpretive Center—Canal Room, 900 Stony Landing Drive, Moncks Corner, SC 29461. The facility's phone number is (843) 899-5200.

    The discussions may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:

    Docket No. ER13-107, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Docket No. ER13-1935, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Docket No. ER13-1928, Duke Energy Carolinas/Carolina Power & Light Docket No. ER13-1930, Louisville Gas & Electric Company/Kentucky Utilities Docket No. ER13-1940, Ohio Valley Electric Corporation Docket No. ER13-1941, Southern Companies The meeting is open to the public.

    For more information, contact Mike Lee, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8658 or [email protected]

    Dated: March 19, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07141 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Proposed Subsequent Arrangement AGENCY:

    Office of Nonproliferation and Arms Control, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Proposed subsequent arrangement.

    SUMMARY:

    This document is being issued under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The Department is providing notice of a proposed subsequent arrangement under the Agreement for Cooperation Concerning Civil Uses of Nuclear Energy Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada and the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy Between the United States of America and the European Atomic Energy Community.

    DATES:

    This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than April 14, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Katie Strangis, Office of Nonproliferation and Arms Control, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy. Telephone: 202-586-8623 or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 221,893 kg of U.S.-origin natural uranium hexafluoride (UF6) (67.6% U), 150,000 kg of which is uranium, from Cameco Corporation (Cameco) in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, to Urenco Ltd. (URENCO) in Almelo, The Netherlands. The material, which is currently located at Cameco in Port Hope, Ontario, will be used for toll enrichment by URENCO at its facility in Almelo, The Netherlands. The material was originally obtained by Cameco from Power Resources, Inc., Cameco Resources-Crowe Butte Operation, and White Mesa Mill pursuant to export license XSOU8798.

    In accordance with section 131a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, it has been determined that this subsequent arrangement concerning the retransfer of nuclear material of United States origin will not be inimical to the common defense and security of the United States of America.

    Dated: March 11, 2015.

    For the Department of Energy.

    Anne M. Harrington, Deputy Administrator, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07214 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-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 Southern Company Services, Inc.

    The Southeastern Regional Transmission Planning (SERTP) Process First Quarter Meeting.

    March 26, 2015, 10:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. (Central Time)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: www.southeasternrtp.com.

    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:

    Docket Nos. ER13-83, ER13-1928, Duke Energy Carolinas/Carolina Power & Light Docket Nos. ER13-908, ER13-1941, Alabama Power Company et al. Docket Nos. ER13-913, ER13-1940, Ohio Valley Electric Corporation Docket Nos. ER13-897, ER13-1930, Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities Company Docket Nos. ER13-107, ER13-1935, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Docket Nos. ER13-80, ER13-1932, Tampa Electric Company Docket No. ER13-86, Florida Power Corporation Docket Nos. ER13-104, ER13-1929, Florida Power & Light Company Docket No. ER13-1922, Duke Energy Florida (Progress Energy Florida) Docket Nos. ER13-195, ER13-198, ER13-1927, ER13-1936, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER13-90, Public Service Electric and Gas Company and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    For more information, contact Valerie Martin, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-6139 or [email protected]

    Dated: March 19, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07142 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2142-038] Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Recreation Plan Amendment.

    b. Project No: 2142-038.

    c. Date Filed: March 11, 2015.

    d. Applicant: Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC.

    e. Name of Project: Indian Pond Project.

    f. Location: The project is located on the Kennebec River in Big Squaw, Chase Stream, and Indian Stream townships, in Somerset and Piscataquis Counties, Maine. The project does not occupy any federal lands.

    g. Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Jason Seyfried, Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC, 26 Katherine Drive, Hallowell, Maine 04347, telephone: 207-629-1883 or email: [email protected]

    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Lorance Yates at 678-245-3084 or email: [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing comments and/or motions: April 23, 2015.

    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 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] or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-2142-038) on any comments, motions, or recommendations filed.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. Description of Application: Brookfield White Pine Hydro proposes revisions to its recreational facility use fees as outlined in Section 4.0 of the Indian Pond Project's approved recreation plan. This plan was approved by the Commission's, “Order Modifying and Approving Revised Recreation Plan” under article 405 issued on February 23, 2005 (110 FERC ¶ 62,166). The licensee proposes to “charge a reasonable rate for use of the recreational facilities, in general accordance with the licensee's cost to operate and maintain the facilities,” except for those recreational facilities uniquely specified in the July 25, 2001 Settlement Agreement.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling 202-502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits (P-2142) in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call 202-502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor 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 385.2010.

    Dated: March 24, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07205 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. TS15-1-000] City of Alexandria, Louisiana; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on December 31, 2014, the City of Alexandria, Louisiana filed a motion requesting full waiver of reciprocity-based Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT), Open Access Same Time Information System (OASIS), and Standards of Conduct requirements that might otherwise apply to Alexandria under Order Nos. 888,1 889,2 890,3 2004,4 and 717 5 and part 385 of the Commission's regulations.

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

    2Open Access Same-Time Information System (formerly Real-Time Information Networks) and Standards of Conduct, Order No. 889, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,035 (1996), order on reh'g, Order No. 889-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,049 (1997), order on reh'g, Order No. 889-B, 81 FERC ¶ 61,253 (1997).

    3Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission Service, Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,241, order on reh'g, Order No. 890-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,261 (2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 890-B, 123 FERC ¶ 61,299 (2008), order on reh'g, Order No. 890-C, 126 FERC ¶ 61,228 (2009) order on reh'g, Order No. 890-D, 129 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2009) (Order No. 890).

    4Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No. 2004, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,155 (2003), order on reh'g, Order No. 2004-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,161, order on reh'g, Order No. 2004-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,166, order on reh'g, Order No. 2004-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,172 (2004), order on reh'g, Order No. 2004-D, 110 FERC ¶ 61,320 (2005), vacated and remanded as it applies to natural gas pipelines sub nom. National Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. FERC, 468 F.3d 831 (D.C. Cir. 2006); see Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No. 690, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,237, order on reh'g, Order No. 690-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,243 (2007); see also Order No. 717, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,280.

    5Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No. 717, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,280 (2008) order on reh'g, Order No. 717-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,297 (2009) order on reh'g, Order No. 717-B, 129 FERC ¶ 61,123 (2009).

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street N.E., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 14, 2015.

    Dated: March 24, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07195 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-91-000] East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Loudon Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Loudon Expansion Project involving construction and operation of facilities by East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC (East Tennessee) in Monroe and Loudon Counties, Tennessee. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on April 23, 2015.

    Further details on how to submit written comments are in the Public Participation section of this notice. If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on February 20, 2015, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP15-91-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.

    East Tennessee provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

    Summary of the Proposed Project

    East Tennessee would construct, own, and operate a new pipeline and related appurtenant facilities extending from its existing 12-inch-diameter Line 3200-1 pipeline in Monroe County, Tennessee to Tate & Lyle Americas Ingredients, LLC (Tate & Lyle) a manufacturer of artificial sweeteners and ethanol products in Loudon County, Tennessee. The Loudon Expansion Project would provide up to 40,000 decatherms per day of natural gas to Tate & Lyle, which is planning to convert its existing coal fired boilers to natural gas, and install a new natural gas fueled combined cycle electric power plant.

    The Loudon Expansion Project would consist of the following facilities:

    • About 10 miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline (Loudon Mainline Extension) in Monroe and Loudon Counties;

    • A new 12-inch mainline valve, two 12-inch tee taps and related appurtenant facilities at the interconnection of the Loudon Mainline Extension with the existing Line 3200-1 mainline in Monroe County;

    • A new meter facility and related appurtenances located at the end of the Loudon Mainline Extension at the Tate & Lyle Plant in Loudon County, Tennessee;

    • Above- and below-ground piping, flow measurement equipment, flow control equipment, filter/separator, pig launcher and receiver,1 aboveground valve operators for belowground valves, blowdowns, and a condensate tank; and

    1 A “pig” is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline, conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.

    • A new pressure regulator at existing meter station 59039 on East Tennessee's existing Loudon-Lenoir City Lateral Line 3218D-100, in Loudon County.

    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.2

    2 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov using the link called “eLibrary” or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to pages 6 and 7 of this notice.

    Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 88.5 acres of land. Following construction, East Tennessee would maintain about 62.3 acres for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. About 87 percent of the pipeline route parallels existing pipeline, utility, or road rights-of-way.

    The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us 3 to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.

    3 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:

    • Geology and soils;

    • Land use;

    • Water resources and fisheries, and wetlands;

    • Cultural resources;

    • Vegetation and wildlife, including migratory birds;

    • Air quality and noise;

    • Endangered and threatened species; and

    • Public safety.

    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning on page 5.

    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.4 Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

    4 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6.

    Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the Tennessee State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.5 We will define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under Section 106.

    5 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

    Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the environmental information provided by East Tennessee. This preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis. These include impacts on:

    • Waterbodies;

    • Karst geology, including caves;

    • Soils;

    • Migratory birds;

    • Vegetation;

    • Candidate and listed threatened or endangered species;

    • Land use;

    • Air quality and noise;

    • Safety; and

    • Alternative routes.

    Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before April 23, 2015.

    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the project docket number (CP15-91-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected]

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” You must select the type of filing you are making. If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing”; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.

    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site.

    Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-91). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: March 24, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07202 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-87-000] Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed UTICA Access Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Utica Access Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC. (Columbia) in Clay and Kanawha Counties, West Virginia. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on April 20, 2015.

    You may submit comments in written form. Further details on how to submit written comments are in the Public Participation section of this notice. If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on February 12, 2015, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP15-87-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.

    Columbia provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

    Summary of the Proposed Project

    According to Columbia, the Utica Access Project would result in a capacity of 205,000 dekatherms per day of firm transportation service of stranded Utica natural gas into Columbia's system and regional market.

    Specifically, the Utica Access Project would consist of the installation of approximately 4.8 miles of new 24-inch-diameter pipeline and the following appurtenant facilities in Clay and Kanawha Counties, West Virginia:

    • Four new bi-directional pig launcher and receiver systems at the following locations: one each at MP 0.0 and MP 4.8 of the new 24-inch-diameter pipeline, and one each at the existing Coco and Cobb Compressor Stations (which are on Columbia's existing Line X52-M1);

    • a new mainline valve setting on Line X52-M1 at a proposed new tap at MP 0.0;

    • two new 10-inch pressure regulating valves and modifications within the existing Coco Compressor Station;

    • one new remote terminal unit building at MP 4.8;

    • twenty-one existing and two partially new access roads; and

    • three temporary contractor yards.

    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1. 1

    1 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov using the link called “eLibrary” or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.

    Land Requirements for Construction

    The total land requirement to construct the project is approximately 118.9 acres, of which 36.6 acres would be permanently altered and converted to pipeline right-of-way, access road, or commercial/industrial land use. Upland forest would make up approximately 27.2 acres of the 36.6 acres of permanent impacts. Upon completion of the project, the remaining land used for temporary workspace would be re-graded, stabilized and re-vegetated, and allowed to revert to pre-construction conditions.

    The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us 2 to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.

    2 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:

    • Land use;

    • geology and soils;

    • water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;

    • cultural resources;

    • vegetation and wildlife;

    • air quality and noise;

    • endangered and threatened species;

    • public safety; and

    • cumulative impacts.

    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section below.

    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.3 Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

    3 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6.

    Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties. 4 We will define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under Section 106.

    4 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

    Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before April 20, 2015.

    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the project docket number (CP15-87-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected].

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” You must select the type of filing you are making. If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing”; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.

    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site.

    Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-87). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: March 20, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07143 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Bonneville Power Administration Hooper Springs Transmission Project AGENCY:

    Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Department of Energy (DOE).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of Record of Decision (ROD).

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the availability of the ROD to implement the Hooper Springs Transmission Project in Caribou County, Idaho. BPA has decided to implement the South Alternative's Option 3A (Option 3A) identified in the Hooper Springs Transmission Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0451, January 2015). Option 3A consists of: (1) A new 138/115-kilovolt (kV) Hooper Springs Substation located near the city of Soda Springs, Idaho; (2) a new, approximately 24-mile-long, double-circuit 115-kV transmission line extending generally north then east from the Hooper Springs Substation to a new BPA connection facility that will connect the new line to Lower Valley Energy's (LVE) existing transmission system in northeastern Caribou County; (3) a new, approximately 0.2-mile-long, single-circuit 138-kV transmission line extending generally south from the Hooper Springs Substation to PacifiCorp's existing Threemile Knoll Substation to connect the new line to the regional transmission grid; and (4) required ancillary facilities such as access roads.

    The new Hooper Springs Substation will be constructed as a 138/115-kV substation, meaning that it will include a transformer capable of converting 138-kV electricity to 115-kV electricity. BPA will acquire 100-foot-wide right-of-way for the length of the 115-kV line. Approximately 174 new double-circuit 115-kV steel structures, ranging in height from 55 to 120 feet with an average span length between structures of 730 feet, will be installed in this new right-of-way. The BPA connection facility will be located about two miles southeast of the intersection of Blackfoot River Road and Diamond Creek Road and will consist of overhead line disconnect switches to connect the new 115-kV line to the existing LVE line. For the single-circuit 138-kV transmission line, two wood, H-frame structures approximately 80 to 85 feet tall will be installed within a new 125-foot-wide right-of-way. A fiber optic cable also will be installed along the 138-kV transmission line. About 14 miles of new access roads will be constructed and about 2.4 miles of existing access roads will be improved or reconstructed. All mitigation measures identified in the EIS are adopted.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the ROD and EIS may be obtained by calling BPA's toll-free document request line, 1-800-622-4520. The ROD and EIS are also available on our Web site, http://efw.bpa.gov/environmental_services/Document_Library/HooperSprings/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tish Eaton, Bonneville Power Administration—KEC-4, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208-3621; toll-free telephone number 1-800-622-4519; fax number 503-230-5699; or email [email protected]

    Issued in Portland, Oregon on March 16, 2015. Elliot E. Mainzer, Administrator and Chief Executive Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07199 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-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: RP15-656-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.403: LSS and SS-2 Fuel Tracker Filing 2015 to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/18/15.

    Accession Number: 20150318-5147.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-657-000.

    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Negotiated Capacity Release Agreement—3/19/2015 to be effective 3/19/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20150319-5025.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-658-000.

    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rate Filing—SND Non-Conforming 0414 (RS FT) to be effective 2/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20150319-5132.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-659-000.

    Applicants: Portland Natural Gas Transmission System.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Compliance to Order 801—Docket No. RM14-21-000 to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150320-5022.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-660-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Amendments to Neg Rate Agmts (QEP 37657-137, 36601-40) to be effective 3/20/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150320-5023.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-661-000.

    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rate—Occidental Energy to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150320-5117.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-662-000.

    Applicants: Leaf River Energy Center LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Leaf River Energy Center LLC—Order No. 801 Compliance Filing to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150320-5154.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-663-000.

    Applicants: ANR Storage Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Compliance to Order 801—Docket No. RM14-21-000 to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5052.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-664-000.

    Applicants: Blue Lake Gas Storage Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Compliance to Order 801—Docket No. RM14-21-000 to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5053.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-665-000.

    Applicants: Bison Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Compliance to Order 801—Docket No. RM14-21-000 to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5054.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-666-000.

    Applicants: Horizon Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Penalty Revenue Crediting Report of Horizon Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Filed Date: 3/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150320-5266.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-667-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Penalty Revenue Crediting Report of Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC.

    Filed Date: 3/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150320-5267.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/1/15.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1371-002.

    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Compliance with Order No. 801 to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20150319-5042.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-584-001.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 154.205(b): Errata to RP15-584 to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 23, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07164 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-102-000.

    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.

    Description: Application of Florida Power & Light Company for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Action.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5346.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG15-70-000.

    Applicants: CPV Biomass Holdings, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of CPV Biomass Holdings, LLC.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5086.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3184-004; ER10-2805-004; ER10-2600-005; ER10-2564-005; ER10-2289-005; EL15-42-000.

    Applicants: FortisUS Energy Corporation, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., Tucson Electric Power Company, UNS Electric, Inc., UniSource Energy Development Company.

    Description: Response to Order to Show Cause of the Fortis MBR Sellers.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5342.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4315-005; ER10-3110-004; ER10-3144-005.

    Applicants: Gila River Power LLC, Union Power Partners, L.P., Entegra Power Services LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the Entegra Public Utilities.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5159.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1922-001.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, Inc., Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Order No. 1000 Interregional FRCC & SERTP to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5070.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1928-002.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Order No. 1000 Interregional—SERTP & SCRTP & FRCC to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5069.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1930-002.

    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Order 1000 Interregional FRCC and SCRTP to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5092.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1932-001.

    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: OATT Order No. 1000 Interregional Compliance Filing 2015 to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5034.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1935-001.

    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Order 1000 Interregional Compliance filing 3-24-15 to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5057.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1941-002.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Order No. 1000 Second Interregional Compliance Filing—FRCC & SCRPT Seams to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5074.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2255-001.

    Applicants: Mansfield Power and Gas, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Mansfield Power and Gas, LLC.

    Filed Date: 3/18/15.

    Accession Number: 20150318-5204.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2318-005; ER13-2317-005; ER13-2319-005.

    Applicants: All Dams Generation, LLC, Lake Lynn Generation, LLC, PE Hydro Generation, LLC.

    Description: Notification of Change in Status of the Cube Hydro MBR Sellers.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5343.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2864-003.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Compliance Filing per 2/20/15 Order in Docket No. ER14-2864 to be effective 11/12/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5321.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-551-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: eTariff filing per 35.19a(b): 2390R2 Westar Energy, Inc. Refund Report to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5077.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-571-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: eTariff filing per 35.19a(b): 2066R3 Westar Energy, Inc. Refund Report to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5067.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-599-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: eTariff filing per 35.19a(b): 2562R2 Kansas Municipal Energy Authority Refund Report to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5071.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1045-000.

    Applicants: Pilot Hill Wind, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to February 13, 2015 Pilot Hill Wind, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5268.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1196-001.

    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): OATT Energy Imbalance Market Revision (C & P) to be effective 5/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5130.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1359-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-3-23_TSGT-TSA-377-0.0.0—Filing to be effective 10/1/2014.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5291.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1360-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Original Service Agreement No. 4109; Queue No. Z1-073 to be effective 2/19/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5305.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1361-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): First Revised Service Agreement No. 3831; Queue No. Z1-072 to be effective 2/19/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5320.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1362-000.

    Applicants: Galt Power, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): MBR Tariff Update to be effective 3/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5045.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1363-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-03-24_SA 2698 Termination of OTP-Courtenay Wind Farm GIA (J262/J263) to be effective 5/24/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5046.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1364-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-03-24_SA 768. Bill of Sale for ATC-UPPCo Agreement to be effective 5/24/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5079.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1365-000.

    Applicants: Morris Cogeneration, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Reactive Power Rate Schedule to be effective 5/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5124.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1366-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-03-24_SA 2761. ATC-UPPCo Common Facilities Agreement to be effective 5/24/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5133.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1367-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-03-24_SA 768. Notice of Termination of Bill of Sale (ATC-UPPCo) to be effective 5/24/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5137.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF15-549-000.

    Applicants: Clark University.

    Description: Form 556 of Clark University under QF15-549.

    Filed Date: 3/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150312-5166.

    Comments Due: None Applicable.

    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 24, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07194 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-101-000.

    Applicants: American Transmission Company LLC.

    Description: Application for Authority to Acquire Transmission Facilities Under Section 203 of the FPA of American Transmission Company LLC.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5267.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-741-001.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): PacifiCorp Energy Network Operating Agreement—Deficiency Filing to be effective 2/22/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5186.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1353-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Idaho Power Migration Agreement—LaGrande/Pocatello to be effective 3/24/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5187.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1354-000.

    Applicants: Lake Lynn Generation, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Change in Status and Amended MBR Tariff to be effective 5/19/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5221.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1355-000.

    Applicants: All Dams Generation, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Change in Status and Amended MBR Tariff to be effective 5/19/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5228.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1356-000.

    Applicants: PE Hydro Generation, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Change in Status and Amended MBR Tariff to be effective 5/19/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5234.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1357-000.

    Applicants: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Amedment Filing to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5285.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1358-000.

    Applicants: Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing per 35.1: Certificate of Concurrence in Amended and Restated SGIA with NYISO to be effective 3/23/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5289.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    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 23, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07153 Filed 3-27-15; 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: PR15-30-000.

    Applicants: Enbridge Pipelines (Oklahoma Trasmission) L.L.C.

    Description: Submits tariff filing per 284.123(b)(2) + (g): Revised SOC—No Rate Change to be effective 3/18/2015; Filing Type: 1310.

    Filed Date: 3/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150317-5054.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15. 284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-654-000.

    Applicants: Northwest Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: RM14-21—Map Compliance Filing to be effective 4/17/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150317-5203.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-655-000.

    Applicants: Union Power Partners, L.P.

    Description: Joint Petition for Limited Waiver of Union Power Partners, L.P., Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C., and Entergy Texas, Inc.

    Filed Date: 3/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150317-5225.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/15.

    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 date(s). 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 18, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07163 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-100-000.

    Applicants: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc., Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.

    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc., and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.

    Filed Date: 3/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150320-5272.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1777-007; ER10-2983-006; ER10-2980-006; ER15-718-002.

    Applicants: Sundevil Power Holdings, LLC, Castleton Energy Services, LLC, Castleton Power, LLC, West Valley Power, LLC.

    Description: Notification of Change in Status of the Wayzata Entities.

    Filed Date: 3/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150320-5278.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1800-007.

    Applicants: Indianapolis Power & Light Company.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Indianapolis Power & Light Company.

    Filed Date: 3/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150320-5279.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1819-009; ER10-1820-011; ER10-1818-008; ER10-1817-009.

    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation, Public Service Company of Colorado, Southwestern Public Service Company.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, et al.

    Filed Date: 3/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150320-5277.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2881-019; ER10-2882-019; ER10-2883-019; ER10-2884-019; ER10-2885-019; ER10-2641-019; ER10-2663-019; ER10-2886-019; ER13-1101-014; ER13-1541-013; ER14-787-007; ER14-661-006.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company, Southern Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Oleander Power Project, Limited Partnership, Southern Company—Florida LLC, Southern Turner Cimarron I, LLC, Spectrum Nevada Solar, LLC, Campo Verde Solar, LLC, Macho Springs Solar, LLC, SG2 Imperial Valley LLC.

    Description: Notification of Non-Material of Change in Status of Alabama Power Company, et. al.

    Filed Date: 3/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150320-5276.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-959-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: eTariff filing per 35.19a(b): Tri-County Electric Cooperative Formula Rate Refund Report in ER12-959-000 to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5142.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-823-003; ER15-1348-001; ER12-1561-002.

    Applicants: Castleton Commodities Merchant Trading L, Roseton Generating LLC, CCI Rensselaer LLC.

    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis Update of Castleton Commodities Merchant Trading L.P. for the Northeast Region.

    Filed Date: 3/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150320-5283.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1029-001.

    Applicants: Chubu TT Energy Management Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Chubu TT MBRA App Supplement to be effective 4/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150320-5230.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1351-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Service Agreement No. 3770; Queue No. X1-037 to be effective 2/19/2015 under ER15-1351 Filing Type: 10.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5138.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1352-000.

    Applicants: Portsmouth Genco, LLC.

    Description: Petition for Limited Waiver of Tariff Deadlines and Request for Expedited Action of Portsmouth Genco, LLC.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5164.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    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 23, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07152 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL15-55-000] Modesto Irrigation District Turlock Irrigation District v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on March 18, 2015, pursuant to section 202, 206, 306 and 309 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(a), 825(e), 825(e), 825(h) and rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 Modesto Irrigation District (Mid) and the Turlock Irrigation District (TID) (collectively, Complainants) filed a formal complaint against the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E or Respondent), alleging that PG&E has breached and anticipatorily breached each Complainants' respective Interconnection Agreements on file with the Commission, in violation of the Federal Power Act, by: (1) Failing to fully and properly notify the Complainants of modifications to Respondent's Remedial Action Scheme (RAS); (2) refusing and failing to study the potential Adverse Impacts arising from these RAS modifications; and (3) repudiating Respondent's obligation to mitigate or compensate for adverse impacts arising from such RAS modifications.

    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. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 7, 2015.

    Dated: March 19, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07144 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER15-402-001; Docket No. ER15-817-000; Docket No. ER15-861-000; Docket No. EL15-53-000;] California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of FERC Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that on March 26, 2015 members of its staff will attend the California Independent System Operator Corporation's (CAISO) Board of Governors meeting. The agenda and other documents for the meeting are available on CAISO's Web site, www.caiso.com.

    Sponsored by CAISO, the meeting is open to all market participants and staff's attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts. The meeting may discuss matters at issue in the above captioned dockets.

    For further information, contact Saeed Farrokhpay at [email protected] (916) 294-0322.

    Dated: March 24, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07203 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. ER15-861-000; EL15-53-000] California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of Technical Conference

    By order issued in this proceeding on March 16, 2015,1 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) directed its staff to convene a technical conference to develop a record regarding issues related to imbalance energy price spikes experienced in PacifiCorp's balancing authority areas (BAAs) subsequent to PacifiCorp's full activation in the California Independent System Operator Corporation's (CAISO) Energy Imbalance Market (EIM), and to facilitate the development of a long-term solution. Consistent with the attached agenda, the technical conference will explore the circumstances identified in reports filed by CAISO and its Department of Market Monitoring (DMM) in Docket No. ER15-402-000 regarding the imbalance energy price spikes in PacifiCorp's BAAs and the status of CAISO and PacifiCorp efforts to improve the transitional issues identified in those reports. CAISO should come prepared to answer the questions laid out in the attached agenda. We invite DMM and PacifiCorp to also be prepared to answer questions.

    1Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 150 FERC ¶ 61,191 (2015).

    The technical conference will be held on Thursday, April 9, 2015, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EST), at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Attached to this notice is an agenda for the technical conference.

    The technical conference will be open for the public to attend, and those interested in attending are encouraged to register by close of business, April 1, 2015. You may register at the following Web page: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/04-09-15-form.asp.

    An audio listen-only line will be provided. If you need a listen-only line, please email Sarah McKinley ([email protected]) by 5:00 p.m. (EST) on Friday, April 3, with your name, email, and phone number, in order to receive the call-in information the day before the conference. Please use the following text for the subject line, “ER15-861 listen-only line registration.”

    This conference will also be transcribed. Transcripts of the technical conference will be available for a fee from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. (202) 347-3700.

    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to [email protected] or call toll free 1 (866) 208-3372 (voice) or (202) 208-1659 (TTY), or send a FAX to (202) 208-2106 with the required accommodations.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:

    Sarah McKinley, Office of External Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8368, [email protected]; Jennifer B. Shipley, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6822, [email protected].

    Dated: March 24, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07204 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0734; FRL-9924-51] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal and Comment Request; Health and Safety Data Reporting, Submission of Lists and Copies of Health and Safety Studies AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR, entitled: “Health and Safety Data Reporting, Submission of Lists and Copies of Health and Safety Studies” and identified by EPA ICR No. 0575.15 and OMB Control No. 2070-0004, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2015. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0734, by one of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact: Mike Mattheisen, Chemical Control Division (7405-M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-3077; 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. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

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

    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.

    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

    II. What information collection activity or ICR does this action apply to?

    Title: Health and Safety Data Reporting, Submission of Lists and Copies of Health and Safety Studies.

    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 0575.15.

    OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-0004.

    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on November 30, 2015. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

    Abstract: Section 8(d) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and 40 CFR part 716 require manufacturers and processors of chemicals to submit lists and copies of health and safety studies relating to the health and/or environmental effects of certain chemical substances and mixtures. In order to comply with the reporting requirements of TSCA section 8(d), respondents must search their records to identify any health and safety studies in their possession, copy and process relevant studies, list studies that are currently in progress, and submit this information to EPA.

    EPA uses this information to construct a complete picture of the known effects of the chemicals in question, leading to determinations by EPA of whether additional testing of the chemicals is required. The information enables EPA to base its testing decisions on the most complete information available and to avoid demands for testing that may be duplicative. EPA will use information obtained via this collection to support its investigation of the risks posed by chemicals and, in particular, to support its decisions on whether to require industry to test chemicals under section 4 of TSCA. This information collection request addresses the reporting requirements found in TSCA section 8(d).

    Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40 CFR part 716). Respondents may claim all or part of a response confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.

    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10.0 hours per response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:

    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR are persons who manufacture, process, or distribute in commerce chemical substances or mixtures, or who propose to do so.

    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 119.

    Frequency of response: On occasion.

    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.3.

    Estimated total annual burden hours: 1,605 hours.

    Estimated total annual costs: $116,551. This includes an estimated burden cost of $116,551 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

    III. Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    There is an increase of 242 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase reflects additional burden resulting from the one-time requirement for respondents to register with EPA's CDX reporting system and to establish electronic signature agreements, plus correcting the estimated number of robust summaries submitted each year. The ICR supporting statement provides a detailed analysis of the change in burden estimate. This change is an adjustment.

    IV. What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: March 20, 2015. James Jones, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07208 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0022; FRL-9924-21] Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Uses AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the File Symbol of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Lewis, Registration Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected] The mailing address for the contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the end of each application summary.

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

    1. EPA Registration Number: 100-1254. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2015 0031. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, 410 Swing Road, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. Active ingredient: Mandipropamid. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed Use: Potato seeds. Contact: RD.

    2. EPA Registration Number: 100-1254. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0096. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, 410 Swing Road, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. Active ingredient: Mandipropamid. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed Use: Non-bearing citrus. Contact: RD.

    3. EPA File Symbol: 100-RUTI. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0141. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection LLC., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. Active ingredient: Benzovindiflupyr. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed uses: Cereals; blueberries (non-bearing); corn; cotton; vegetables, cucurbits (crop group 9); fruiting vegetables (crop group 8-10); small fruit climbing subgroup 13-07F (except fuzzy kiwifruit); legume vegetables subgroup 6C; peanuts; pome fruit (crop group 11-10); rapeseed subgroup 20A; vegetables, tuberous and corm subgroup 1C; turf and ornamentals. Contact: RD.

    4. EPA Registration Number or File Symbol: 8033-RGR. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0124. Applicant: Nisso America, Inc., Nippon Soda Co., LTD., 88 Pine Street, Fourteenth Floor, New York, NY 10005. Active ingredients: Etofenprox, Acetamiprid, Piperonyl Butoxide, S-Methoprene. Product type: Spot on for dogs. Proposed Use: Insecticide. Contact: RD.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: March 20, 2015. Daniel J. Rosenblatt, Acting, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07209 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9925-26-OW] Notice of a Public Meeting: The National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) Lead and Copper Rule Working Group Meeting AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a public meeting of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) Lead and Copper Rule Working Group (LCRWG). The meeting is scheduled for April 23 and 24, 2015, in Arlington, VA. During this meeting, the LCRWG and EPA will focus discussions on revising the second draft of the working group's recommendations to the NDWAC on potential changes to the Lead and Copper Rule.

    DATES:

    The meeting on April 23, 2015, will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., eastern time, and on April 24, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., eastern time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Cadmus Group Inc., 1555 Wilson Blvd., Suite 300, Arlington, VA, and will be open to the public. All attendees must sign in with the security desk and show photo identification to enter the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For more information about this meeting or to request written materials contact Lameka Smith, Standards and Risk Management Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, EPA; by phone at (202) 564-1629 or by email at [email protected] For additional information about the Lead and Copper Rule, please visit: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/lcr/index.cfm.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Details about Participating in the Meeting: Members of the public who would like to register for this meeting should contact Lameka Smith by April 22, 2015, by email at [email protected] or by phone at 202-564-1629. The LCRWG will allocate 15 minutes for the public's input at the meeting on April 23rd and 15 minutes on April 24th. Each oral statement will be limited to five minutes at the meeting. It is preferred that only one person present a statement on behalf of a group or organization. To ensure adequate time for public involvement, individuals or organizations interested in presenting an oral statement should notify Lameka Smith no later than April 21, 2015. Any person who wishes to file a written statement can do so before or after the LCRWG meeting. Written statements intended for the meeting must be received by April 20, 2015, to be distributed to all members of the working group before the meeting. Any statements received on or after the date specified will become part of the permanent file for the meeting and will be forwarded to the LCRWG members for their information.

    Special Accommodations: For information on access or to request special accommodations for individuals with disabilities please contact Lameka Smith at (202) 564-1629 or by email at [email protected] at least 10 days prior to the meeting to give the EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: March 19, 2015. Peter Grevatt, Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07112 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0057; FRL-9922-79] Registration Review; Pesticide Dockets Opened for Review and Comment AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    With this document, EPA is opening the public comment period for several registration reviews. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Registration review dockets contain information that will assist the public in understanding the types of information and issues that the Agency may consider during the course of registration reviews. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment. This document also announces the Agency's intent to close the registration review case for tebufenpyrad, imazamethabenz, and 2-((hydroxymethyl)-amino)ethanol (also known as HMAE). These pesticides do not currently have any actively registered pesticide products and, therefore, the Agency is closing the registration review cases for tebufenpyrad, imazamethabenz, and HMAE.

    For phenmedipham, EPA is seeking comment on the preliminary work plan, the ecological problem formulation, and the human health draft risk assessment.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments identified by the docket identification (ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the table in Unit III.A., by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For pesticide specific information, contact: The Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in the table in Unit III.A. For general information contact: Richard Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8015; fax number: (703) 308-8005; 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, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farmworker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may 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 this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

    II. Authority

    EPA is initiating its reviews of the pesticides identified in this document pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136a(g)) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food.

    III. Registration Reviews A. What action is the Agency taking?

    As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide registrations identified in the table in this unit to assure that they continue to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration—that is, they can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. A pesticide's registration review begins when the Agency establishes a docket for the pesticide's registration review case and opens the docket for public review and comment. At present, EPA is opening registration review dockets for the cases identified in the following table.

    Table 1—Registration Review Dockets Opening Registration review case name and No. Pesticide docket ID No. Chemical review manager, telephone number, email address Bioban P-1487 (Case 3028) EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0802 SanYvette Williams, 703-305-7702, [email protected]. Bis(bromoacetoxy)-2-butene (BBAB) (Case 3030) EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0799 Tina Pham, 703-308-0125, [email protected]. Carboxin and Oxycarboxin (Case 0012) EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0144 Dana L. Friedman, 703-347-8827, [email protected]. Copper HDO (Case 5106) EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0800 Donna Kamarei, 703-347-0443, [email protected]. Chondrostereum Purpureum (Case 6091) EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0051 Kathleen Martin, 703-308-2857, [email protected]. Creosote (Case 0139) EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0823 Sandra O'Neill, 703-347-0141, [email protected]. Cyazofamid (Case 7656) EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0128 Jose Gayoso, 703-347-8652, [email protected]. Famoxadone (Case 7038) EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0094 Christina Scheltema, 703-308-2201, [email protected]. Lufenuron (Case 7627) EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0098 Bonnie Adler, 703-308-8523, [email protected]. Myclobutanil (Case 7006) EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0053 Benjamin Askin, 703-347-0503, [email protected]. Novaluron (Case 7615) EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0171 Margaret Hathaway, 703-305-5076, [email protected]. Phenmedipham (Case 0277) EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0546 Miguel Zavala, 703-347-0504, [email protected]. Sethoxydim (Case 2600) EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0088 James Parker, 703-306-0469,