Federal Register Vol. 80, No.61,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 61 (March 31, 2015)

Page Range16961-17305
FR Document

80_FR_61
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 17080 - Sunshine Act Meetings; National Science BoardPDF
80 FR 17119 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 17045 - Notice for Public Comment on the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)PDF
80 FR 17058 - Notice for Public Comment on the Title IV-E Adoption Assistance Program's Suspension and Termination PoliciesPDF
80 FR 16970 - Certain Employee Remuneration in Excess of $1,000,000 Under Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m)PDF
80 FR 17032 - Extension of Deadline of Request for Applicants for Appointment to the United States-Brazil CEO ForumPDF
80 FR 17109 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 17138 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition ReceivedPDF
80 FR 17034 - Large Power Transformers From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013PDF
80 FR 17033 - Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Xylem Water Systems USA LLC, Subzone 37D (Centrifugal and Submersible Pumps), Auburn, New YorkPDF
80 FR 17039 - State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB)PDF
80 FR 16973 - Period of Limitations on Assessment for Listed Transactions Not Disclosed Under Section 6011PDF
80 FR 17020 - Notice of a Public Meeting: Regulations Implementing Section 1417 of the Safe Drinking Water Act: Prohibition on Use of Lead Pipes, Solder and FluxPDF
80 FR 17025 - Notice of Intent To Request Approval To Establish a New Information CollectionPDF
80 FR 16998 - Grapes Grown in a Designated Area of Southeastern California; Increased Assessment RatePDF
80 FR 17029 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-National Universal Product Code (NUPC) DatabasePDF
80 FR 17042 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Information Collection Request Renewal for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 3)PDF
80 FR 17027 - Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC): Income Eligibility GuidelinesPDF
80 FR 17026 - Child Nutrition Programs-Income Eligibility GuidelinesPDF
80 FR 17040 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical and Radionuclides Rules Renewal Information Collection Request; Microbial Rules Renewal Information Collection Request; Public Water System Supervision Program Renewal Information Collection RequestPDF
80 FR 17073 - Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge, Mississippi; Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Environmental Assessment and Associated Step-Down PlansPDF
80 FR 17142 - Registration and Financial Security Requirements for Brokers of Property and Freight Forwarders; Association of Independent Property Brokers and Agents' Exemption ApplicationPDF
80 FR 17081 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Metallurgy & Reactor Fuels; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 17021 - Michigan: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program RevisionPDF
80 FR 17045 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 17151 - Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC); NominationsPDF
80 FR 17076 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee; MeetingPDF
80 FR 17139 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
80 FR 17136 - Record of Decision To Adopt U.S. Air Force Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Powder River Training ComplexPDF
80 FR 17072 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application for Energy Innovation Fund-Multifamily Pilot ProgramPDF
80 FR 16980 - Notice of Enforcement for Special Local Regulations; RiverFest; Port Neches, TXPDF
80 FR 17048 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 17153 - Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons Pursuant to the Cuban Assets Control RegulationsPDF
80 FR 17109 - Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration Project; Department of DefensePDF
80 FR 17053 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension of Certification of Maintenance of Effort on Help America Vote Act, Payments for Protection and Advocacy Systems (P&A Voting Access Narrative Annual Report)PDF
80 FR 16996 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Inseason Adjustment to the 2015 Gulf of Alaska Pollock Seasonal ApportionmentsPDF
80 FR 17032 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 17152 - List of Countries Requiring Cooperation With an International BoycottPDF
80 FR 17136 - SJI Board of Directors Meeting, NoticePDF
80 FR 17076 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActPDF
80 FR 17150 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 17040 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
80 FR 17038 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 17117 - Princeton Private Equity Fund and Princeton Fund Advisors, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 17005 - Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation AirplanesPDF
80 FR 17056 - Ear, Nose, and Throat Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Amendment of NoticePDF
80 FR 17052 - Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 17078 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997PDF
80 FR 17045 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 17044 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 17044 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 17152 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 17034 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument Mokupapapa Discovery Center Exhibit EvaluationPDF
80 FR 17137 - Transfer of Federally Assisted FacilityPDF
80 FR 17147 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the GA 400 Transit Initiative in Fulton County, GeorgiaPDF
80 FR 17072 - Notice of Cancellation of Public Meeting, Pecos District Resource Advisory Council Meeting, Lesser Prairie-Chicken Habitat Preservation Area of Critical Environmental Concern (LPC ACEC) Livestock Grazing Subcommittee New MexicoPDF
80 FR 17054 - Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 17036 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 17007 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 17003 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 17079 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 408(b)(2) RegulationPDF
80 FR 17077 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories StandardPDF
80 FR 17081 - Vogtle Electric Generating Station, Units 3 and 4; Southern Nuclear Operating Company; Annex Building Structure and Layout ChangesPDF
80 FR 17076 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
80 FR 17059 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Cargo Manifest/Declaration, Stow Plan, Container Status Messages and Importer Security FilingPDF
80 FR 17073 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
80 FR 17050 - Early Clinical Trials With Live Biotherapeutic Products: Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control Information; Guidance for Industry; Request for CommentsPDF
80 FR 17051 - Critical Path Innovation Meetings; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 17047 - Electronic Study Data Submission; Data Standards; Recommending the Use of the World Health Organization Drug DictionaryPDF
80 FR 17049 - Odalys Fernandez: Debarment OrderPDF
80 FR 17057 - Development and Submission of Near Infrared Analytical Procedures; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 17057 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Food Labeling; Calorie Labeling of Articles of Food in Vending MachinesPDF
80 FR 17047 - Target Animal Safety Data Presentation and Statistical Analysis; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 17055 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Irradiation in the Production, Processing, and Handling of FoodPDF
80 FR 17153 - Notice of Open Public Hearing; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 17126 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Rule 5950PDF
80 FR 17132 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Collateral and Haircut PolicyPDF
80 FR 17119 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to FATCA RequirementsPDF
80 FR 17122 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Clarify Certain Statements Made in SR-BOX-2015-03, a Proposed Rule Change Filed by the Exchange on January 9, 2015PDF
80 FR 17046 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 17053 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 17136 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 17129 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 17129 - ETFS Trust and ETF Securities Advisors, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 17121 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 17135 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 17049 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 17124 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Clearance of New Natural Gas Futures ContractsPDF
80 FR 17038 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) 2016 and 2018PDF
80 FR 17033 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Pacific Islands Logbook Family of FormsPDF
80 FR 17141 - Wisconsin Central Ltd.-Abandonment Exemption-in Lake County, Ill.PDF
80 FR 17037 - Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 17031 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Missouri Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Discuss Matters Related to Its Project on Police-Community Relations in Missouri; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 17031 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the New York Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 17080 - Levi Strauss & Co., Eugene, Oregon; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for ReconsiderationPDF
80 FR 17080 - Notice of Availability of Funds and Funding Opportunity Announcement for Training To Work 3-Adult ReentryPDF
80 FR 17010 - Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan; ReconsiderationPDF
80 FR 17043 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewal; Comment Request (3064-0109, 0162 & 0165)PDF
80 FR 16996 - Implementation of Executive Order 13672 Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity by Contractors and Subcontractors; Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of OMB ApprovalPDF
80 FR 17083 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsPDF
80 FR 17062 - Notice of Regulatory Waiver Requests Granted for the Fourth Quarter of Calendar Year 2014PDF
80 FR 17000 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 16961 - Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act RegulationPDF
80 FR 16961 - Revisions to Rules of PracticePDF
80 FR 16980 - Electrical Equipment in Hazardous LocationsPDF
80 FR 17221 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential BoilersPDF
80 FR 16963 - HUD Approval of Requests for Transfers of Multifamily Housing Project-Based Rental Assistance, HUD-Held or Insured Debt, and Income-Based Use RestrictionsPDF
80 FR 17061 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the Act, Forms I-864; I-864A; I-864EZ; I-864W; Revision of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
80 FR 17155 - Resource Agency Hearings and Alternatives Development Procedures in Hydropower LicensesPDF

Issue

80 61 Tuesday, March 31, 2015 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES Increased Assessment Rates: Grapes Grown in a Designated Area of Southeastern California, 16998-17000 2015-07370 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

National Institute of Food and Agriculture

RULES Resource Agency Hearings and Alternatives Development Procedures in Hydropower Licenses, 17156-17220 2015-06280
Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 17048-17049 2015-07316 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act; Public Comments, 17045-17046 2015-07390 Title IV-E Adoption Assistance Programs Suspension and Termination Policies; Public Comments, 17058-17059 2015-07389 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Missouri Advisory Committee; Correction, 17031 2015-07240 New York Advisory Committee, 17031-17032 2015-07239 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Electrical Equipment in Hazardous Locations, 16980-16996 2015-06946 Enforcement for Special Local Regulations: RiverFest; Port Neches, TX, 16980 2015-07319 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

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, 17036-17037 2015-07283 Community Living Administration Community Living Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Certification of Maintenance of Effort on Help America Vote Act; Payments for Protection and Advocacy Systems, 17053-17054 2015-07313 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission RULES Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act Regulation, 16961-16963 2015-07151 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 17037-17038 2015-07241 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: School Survey on Crime and Safety 2016 and 2018, 17038 2015-07246 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Funding Availability: Training to Work 3 - Adult Reentry, 17080 2015-07236 Reconsiderations; Determinations: Levi Strauss and Co., Eugene, OR, 17080 2015-07237 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Programs: Standards for Residential Boilers, 17222-17305 2015-06813 NOTICES Meetings: State Energy Advisory Board, 17039-17040 2015-07379
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Arizona; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan; Reconsideration, 17010-17020 2015-07233 Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision: Michigan, 17021-17024 2015-07347 Implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act, Prohibition on Use of Lead Pipes, Solder and Flux; Meeting, 17020-17021 2015-07375 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical and Radionuclides, Microbial and Public Water System Supervision Program, 17040-17042 2015-07357 Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, 17042-17043 2015-07360 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 17000-17005, 17007-17010 2015-07172 2015-07280 2015-07281 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Airplanes, 17005-17007 2015-07301 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Powder River Training Complex, 17136-17137 2015-07324 Petitions for Exemption; Summaries, 17138-17139 2015-07383 Federal Contract Federal Contract Compliance Programs Office RULES Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity by Contractors and Subcontractors; Agency Information Collection Activities Approvals, 16996 2015-07216 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 17043-17044 2015-07229 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 17038-17040 2015-07303 2015-07304 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Exemption Applications; Denials: Association of Independent Property Brokers and Agents, 17142-17147 2015-07353 Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, 17139-17141 2015-07332 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 17045 2015-07296 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 17044-17045 2015-07295 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies, 17044 2015-07294 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission RULES Rules of Practice; Correction, 16961 2015-07117 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: GA 400 Transit Initiative in Fulton County, GA, 17147-17150 2015-07287 Transfer of Federally Assisted Facility, 17137-17138 2015-07288 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge, Mississippi; Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 17073-17076 2015-07356 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Food Labeling; Calorie Labeling of Articles of Food in Vending Machines, 17057 2015-07265 Irradiation in the Production, Processing, and Handling of Food, 17055-17056 2015-07263 Debarment Orders: Odalys Fernandez, 17049-17050 2015-07267 Electronic Study Data Submission; Data Standards; Recommending the Use of the World Health Organization Drug Dictionary, 17047 2015-07269 Guidance for Industry and Staff: Critical Path Innovation Meetings, 17051-17052 2015-07272 Early Clinical Trials with Live Biotherapeutic Products; Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control Information, 17050-17051 2015-07273 Target Animal Safety Data Presentation and Statistical Analysis, 17047-17048 2015-07264 Guidance: Development and Submission of Near Infrared Analytical Procedures, 17057-17058 2015-07266 Meetings: Ear, Nose, and Throat Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee, 17056-17057 2015-07300 Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee, 17052-17053 2015-07299 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Universal Product Code Database, 17029-17031 2015-07369 Child Nutrition Programs: Income Eligibility Guidelines, 17026-17027 2015-07358 Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children: Income Eligibility Guidelines, 17027-17029 2015-07359 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 17153 2015-07315 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Proposed Production Activities: Xylem Water Systems USA LLC, Subzone 37D, Auburn, NY, 17033-17034 2015-07381 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Children and Families Administration

See

Community Living Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department RULES Approval of Requests for Transfers of Multifamily Housing Project-Based Rental Assistance, HUD-Held or Insured Debt, and Income-Based Use Restrictions, 16963-16970 2015-06776 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Energy Innovation Fund- Multifamily Pilot Program, 17072 2015-07323 Regulatory Waiver Requests Granted for the Fourth Quarter of Calendar Year 2014, 17062-17072 2015-07183 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

RULES Resource Agency Hearings and Alternatives Development Procedures in Hydropower Licenses, 17156-17220 2015-06280
Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Certain Employee Remuneration in Excess of $1,000,000 under Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m), 16970-16973 2015-07386 Period of Limitations on Assessment for Listed Transactions Not Disclosed Under Section 6011, 16973-16979 2015-07378 NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee, 17151-17152 2015-07336 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Large Power Transformers from the Republic of Korea; 2012-2013, 17034-17036 2015-07382 Requests for Nominations: United States-Brazil CEO Forum, 17032-17033 2015-07385 Joint Joint Board for Enrollment of Actuaries NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations, 17076 2015-07335 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees under CERCLA, 17076-17077 2015-07307 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

See

Federal Contract Compliance Programs Office

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals National Longitudinal Survey of Youth; Comment Request, 17078-17079 2015-07297 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Employee Retirement Income Security Act Regulation, 17079-17080 2015-07279 Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories Standard, 17077-17078 2015-07278
Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Pecos District Resource Advisory Council, Lesser Prairie-Chicken Habitat Preservation Area of Critical Environmental Concern Livestock Grazing Subcommittee, New Mexico; Cancellations, 17072-17073 2015-07286 National Institute Food National Institute of Food and Agriculture NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 17025-17026 2015-07373 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 17046-17047 2015-07256 National Cancer Institute, 17045 2015-07340 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 17053 2015-07255 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 17049 2015-07249 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Gulf of Alaska Pollock Seasonal Apportionments; Inseason Adjustment, 16996-16997 2015-07312 Resource Agency Hearings and Alternatives Development Procedures in Hydropower Licenses, 17156-17220 2015-06280 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Pacific Islands Logbook Family of Forms, 17033 2015-07244 Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument Mokupapapa Discovery Center Exhibit Evaluation, 17034 2015-07290 Meetings: New England Fishery Management Council, 17032 2015-07311 National Park National Park Service NOTICES National Register of Historic Places: Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 17073, 17076 2015-07274 2015-07276 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 17080-17081 2015-07467 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined License Amendments: Vogtle Electric Generating Station, Units 3 and 4; Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Annex Building Structure and Layout Changes, 17081-17083 2015-07277 Facility Operating Licenses: Applications and Amendments Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations, etc., 17083-17109 2015-07192 Meetings: Advisory Committee On Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Metallurgy and Reactor Fuels, 17081 2015-07350 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 17109 2015-07384 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration Project; Department of Defense, 17109-17117 2015-07314 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 17121-17122, 17135-17136, 17129 2015-07250 2015-07251 2015-07253 2015-07254 Applications: ETFS Trust and ETF Securities Advisors, LLC, 17129-17132 2015-07252 Princeton Private Equity Fund and Princeton Fund Advisors, LLC, 17117-17119 2015-07302 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 17119 2015-07422 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BOX Options Exchange, LLC, 17122-17124 2015-07257 ICE Clear Europe Ltd., 17124-17125, 17132-17135 2015-07248 2015-07259 ICE Clear Europe, Ltd., 17119-17121 2015-07258 NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 17126-17129 2015-07260 State Justice State Justice Institute NOTICES Meetings: Board of Directors, 17136 2015-07308 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 17054-17055 2015-07284 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: Wisconsin Central Ltd., Lake County, IL, 17141-17142 2015-07243 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 17150-17152 2015-07291 2015-07306 List of Countries Requiring Cooperation with an International Boycott, 17152 2015-07309
U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Affidavit of Support, 17061-17062 2015-06732 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Cargo Manifest; Declaration, Stow Plan, etc., 17059-17061 2015-07275 U.S. China U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission NOTICES Meetings: Open Public Hearing; Correction, 17153-17154 2015-07261 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Agriculture Department, 17156-17220 Interior Department, 17156-17220 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 17156-17220 2015-06280 Part III Energy Department, 17222-17305 2015-06813 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 61 Tuesday, March 31, 2015 Rules and Regulations FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 4 Revisions to Rules of Practice AGENCY:

Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION:

Final rules; technical correction.

SUMMARY:

The Federal Trade Commission published final rules on March 23, 2015, revising certain of its rules of practice. This document makes a technical correction to those final rules.

DATES:

Effective March 31, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

G. Richard Gold, Attorney, (202) 326-3355, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Commission published a document in the Federal Register of March 23, 2015 (80 FR 15157), revising certain of its rules of practice. The document contained an incorrect paragraph reference in amendatory instruction 17 that referenced “(a)(10)(viii)” instead of “(b)(10)(viii).” This document corrections the erroneous paragraph reference.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 4

Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Public record.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Trade Commission amends title 16, chapter I, subchapter A of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 4—MISCELLANEOUS RULES 1. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 46, unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend § 4.9 by revising paragraph (b)(10)(viii) to read as follows:
§ 4.9 The public record.

(b) * * *

(10) * * *

(viii) The Commission's annual report submitted after the end of each fiscal year, summarizing its work during the year (with copies obtainable from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402) and any other annual reports made to Congress on activities of the Commission as required by law;

Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-07117 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 1460 [Docket No. CPSC-2015-0006] Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act Regulation AGENCY:

Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act (CGBPA or the Act) adopted the child-resistance requirements for closures on portable gasoline containers—found in the 2005 version of the applicable ASTM rule, F2517-05—as a consumer product safety rule. The 2005 ASTM standard was recently revised. Under the Act, the consumer product standard for portable gasoline containers will, by operation of law, incorporate the 2015 revisions to the child-resistance requirements unless the Commission finds that the revisions do not carry out the purposes of the CGBPA's requirements. The Commission has not found that the revisions fail to carry out the purposes of the CGBPA's requirements. As a result, the 2015 revisions to the child-resistance requirements will be automatically incorporated and apply as the statutorily-mandated standard for closures on portable gasoline containers. This direct final rule is to codify certain sections of the 2015 standard to eliminate potential confusion as to the applicable standard.

DATES:

This rule will be effective on April 12, 2015, unless the Commission receives significant adverse comment by April 3, 2015. If we receive timely significant adverse comments, we will publish notification in the Federal Register withdrawing this direct final rule. The incorporation by reference of the publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 12, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2015-0006, by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through www.regulations.gov. The Commission encourages you to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.

Written Submissions: Submit written comments (paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions) by mail/hand delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at all, such information should be submitted in writing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Boja, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814-4408; telephone (301) 504-7300; [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act. The Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act was enacted on July 17, 2008. The Act establishes as a consumer product safety rule ASTM International's (ASTM) F2517-05's child-resistance requirements for closures on portable gasoline containers. All portable gasoline containers manufactured on or after January 17, 2009 for sale to consumers in the United States must conform to the 2005 ASTM standard's child-resistance requirements. By mandating closures that resist access by children under age 5, the Act seeks to reduce hazards to children, including children ingesting gasoline and inhaling gasoline fumes, and the risk of burns from fires and explosions that may occur when children access gasoline stored in portable gasoline containers. The Act did not require the Commission to take any action for the Act's provisions to take effect; rather, ASTM 2715-05's child-resistance requirements were made mandatory through operation of law, as discussed below.

ASTM F2517-05. Under ASTM F2517-05, Standard Specification for Determination of Child Resistance of Portable Fuel Containers for Consumer Use, closures on affected containers must prove adequately resistant to children as old as 4 years and 3 months.

CGBPA Provisions Regarding Updates to ASTM F2517-05. Under the Act, ASTM must notify the Commission of any revision to the child-resistance requirements for closures contained in ASTM F2517-05. Once ASTM notifies the CPSC of ASTM's revisions to the standard, the revisions will be incorporated by operation of law and will become the consumer product safety standard within 60 days after such notice unless the Commission determines that the revision does not carry out the purposes of the child-resistant requirements for closures on portable gasoline containers specified in ASTM F2517-05 and so notifies ASTM.

Under the Act, the ASTM standard for portable gasoline containers became, by operation of law, the applicable consumer product safety standard. Similarly, any revision to the child-resistance requirements of the ASTM standard becomes, by operation of law, part of the applicable consumer product safety standard unless the Commission determines, within 60 days after receiving notice from ASTM of a revised ASTM standard, that the revisions are not acceptable as provided in the Act.

On February 11, 2015, ASTM gave to CPSC notice of revisions to ASTM F2517-05. The revised standard is designated F2517-15.

The Commission has not made a determination that the revisions to ASTM F2517-05's child-resistance requirements for closures on portable gasoline containers fail to further the purposes of the CGBPA's requirements.

II. Description of the Rule

The rule codifies the child-resistance requirements for closures on portable gasoline containers as stated in ASTM F2517-15. As stated above, these requirements become mandatory through operation of law; the Commission is publishing this rule so that the Code of Federal Regulations will reflect the current version of the mandatory standard.

III. Direct Final Rule

The Commission is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires notice and comment rulemaking, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public procedure are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) endorsed direct final rulemaking as an appropriate procedure to expedite promulgation of rules that are noncontroversial and that are not expected to generate significant adverse comment. See ACUS, Recommendation, 95-4, 60 FR 43108, 43110 (August 18, 1995).

This rule will codify in the Code of Federal Regulations the child-resistance requirements of a consumer product safety standard, ASTM F2517-15, that already are in full force and effect by operation of law. Codification of the rule into CPSC's regulations is intended to eliminate potential confusion as to the child-resistance standard applicable to portable gasoline containers. In these circumstances where the substantive requirements are mandated by statute and have become effective under the statute, public comment serves little purpose. Moreover, codification of existing substantive requirements is not expected to be controversial or to result in significant adverse comment. As a result, the Commission believes that issuance of a rule codifying the revised standard in these circumstances is appropriate.

Unless we receive a significant adverse comment by April 3, 2015, the rule will become effective on April 12, 2015. In accordance with ACUS's recommendation, the Commission considers a significant adverse comment to be one in which the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including an assertion challenging the rule's underlying premise or approach, or a claim that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without change. Should the Commission receive a significant adverse comment, the Commission would withdraw this direct final rule. Depending on the comments and other circumstances, the Commission may then incorporate the adverse comment into a subsequent direct final rule or publish a notice of proposed rulemaking providing an opportunity for public comment.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

Section 1460.3 of the final rule provides that closures on portable gasoline containers must comply with the child-resistance requirements of ASTM F2517-15. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. The OFR recently revised these regulations to require that, for a final rule, agencies must discuss in the rule's preamble ways that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In addition, the preamble of the rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b).

In accordance with the OFR's requirements, the discussion in this section summarizes the provisions of ASTM F2517-15. Interested persons may purchase a copy of ASTM F2517-15 from ASTM, either through ASTM's Web site or by mail at the address provided in the rule. One may also inspect a copy of the standard at the CPSC's Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), as discussed in the rule.

The CPSC is incorporating by reference child-resistance requirements of ASTM F2517-15 pursuant to the Act because the Commission has determined that the revised standard carries out the purposes of the child-resistant requirements for closures on portable gasoline containers specified in ASTM F2517-05.

The revised standard, ASTM F2517-15, contains:

• Testing procedures for assessing child-resistance and senior adult-use effectiveness for closures on portable gasoline containers • A minimum required effectiveness rate of child-resistance and senior adult-use for closures on portable gasoline containers to establish compliance with the standard • A requirement that child-resistant containers and closures first meet the feasible and appropriate spill resistance requirements in CARB CP-501, TP-501, TP-502, and EPA Regulation 40 CFR 59.623. Because the scope of the consumer product safety rule is established by the CGBPA, this rule does not incorporate by reference the scope section of ASTM F2517-15 or Appendix X1 that relates to the scope section of ASTM F2517-15. V. Effective Date

As discussed in the preceding section, this is a direct final rule. Unless the Commission receives a significant adverse comment by April 3, 2015, the rule will become effective on April 12, 2015.

VI. Other Relevant Statutory Provisions A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statutes unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 605. This rule merely codifies requirements that will take effect through operation of law as specified in the CGBPA. The rule does not impose any requirements beyond those put in place by the CGBPA. Thus, the rule does not create new substantive obligations for any entity, including any small entity. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

B. Environmental Considerations

The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exclusion for the Commission's rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement because they “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion, so no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

This direct final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) is not required.

VII. Preemption

Section 26(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that where a “consumer product safety standard under [the CPSA]” is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. (Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances).

As discussed above, under the CGBPA, the child-resistance requirements of ASTM F2517-15 became a consumer product standard for CPSA purposes. Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act, Pub. L 110-278, Sec. 2(a) (July 17, 2008). The child-resistance requirements of ASTM F2517-15, which will be codified under this rule, will invoke the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA.

VIII. Certification

Section 14(a) of the CPSA requires that products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Such certification must be based on a test of each product, or on a reasonable testing program. Because ASTM F2517-15 is deemed a “consumer product safety rule” for CPSA purpose, portable gasoline containers manufactured on or after April 12, 2015 are subject to the testing and certification requirements of section 14 of the CPSA with respect to ASTM F2517-15.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1460

Consumer protection, Gasoline, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

For the reasons stated above, the Commission adds part 1460 to subchapter B of title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

PART 1460—CHILDREN'S GASOLINE BURN PREVENTION ACT REGULATION Sec. 1460.1 Scope and application. 1460.2 Definition. 1460.3 Requirements for child-resistance for closures on portable gasoline containers. Authority:

Sec. 2, Pub. L. 110-278, 122 Stat. 2602.

§ 1460.1 Scope and application.

In accordance with the Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act, portable gasoline containers must comply with the requirements specified in § 1460.3, which are considered to be a consumer product safety rule.

§ 1460.2 Definition.

Portable gasoline container means any portable gasoline container intended for use by consumers.

§ 1460.3 Requirements for child-resistance for closures on portable gasoline containers.

Each portable gasoline container manufactured on or after April 12, 2015 for sale in the United States shall conform to the child-resistance requirements for closures on portable gasoline containers specified in sections 2 through 6 of ASTM F2517-15 (including Appendixes X2 and X3 referenced therein), Standard Specification for Determination of Child Resistance of Portable Fuel Containers for Consumer Use, approved on January 1, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves the incorporation by reference listed in this section in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy of these ASTM standards from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 USA, telephone: 610-832-9585; http://www.astm.org/. You may inspect copies at the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federalregulations/ibr_locations.html.

Alberta E. Mills, Acting Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-07151 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Chapters VIII and IX [Docket No. FR-5779-N-01] HUD Approval of Requests for Transfers of Multifamily Housing Project-Based Rental Assistance, HUD-Held or Insured Debt, and Income-Based Use Restrictions AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.

ACTION:

Notice of requirements to transfer assistance.

SUMMARY:

This notice establishes the terms and conditions by which HUD will approve a request for the transfer of project-based rental assistance, debt held or insured by the Secretary, and statutorily required income-based use restrictions from one multifamily housing project to another (or between several such projects). The Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2014 and the Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2015 give the Secretary the authority to approve transfer requests for fiscal years 2014 through 2016, provided that the Secretary publish a notice in the Federal Register establishing the terms and conditions for HUD approval of such transfers no later than 30 days before such notice takes effect. HUD believes that publication of the criteria will assist project owners to determine whether a transfer is feasible given the specific circumstances of their multifamily projects. Publication of the criteria will also facilitate HUD's review of transfer requests by helping owners formulate their requests in a manner that adequately addresses the statutory criteria.

DATES:

Effective: April 30, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancie-Ann Bodell, Acting Director, Office of Asset Management and Portfolio Oversight of Multifamily Housing, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6110, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-708-2495 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Beginning with section 318 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Pub. L. 109-115, 119 Stat. 2396, approved November 30, 2005), HUD appropriations acts have contained a general provision authorizing the Secretary to approve requests from project owners for the transfer of certain rental assistance, debt, and income-based use restrictions between HUD-assisted projects. For fiscal years 2014 and 2015, this transfer authority is provided under section 214 of Title II of Division L of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113-76, 128 Stat. 5, approved January 17, 2014) (Section 214).1 Section 214(a) states that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law . . . the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may authorize the transfer of some or all project-based assistance, debt held or insured by the Secretary and statutorily required low-income and very low-income use restrictions if any, associated with one or more multifamily housing project or projects to another multifamily housing project or projects.” Section 214(b) also allows for phased transfers of project-based assistance to accommodate the financing and other requirements related to rehabilitating or constructing the project or projects to which the assistance is transferred.

1 Section 212 of Title II of Division K of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235, approved December 16, 2014) provides the same authority for fiscal years 2015 and 2016. For the sake of simplicity, this notice uses “Section 214” to refer to the authority in both Acts, as the language other than the dates is identical.

HUD approval of transfers is subject to the conditions enumerated in the appropriations act for the applicable fiscal year. These statutory terms and conditions have, in general, been consistent from one appropriations act to the next. The statutory criteria for fiscal years 2014 through 2016 are enumerated in Section 214(c), which provides as follows:

• The transfer authorized in subsection (a) is subject to the following conditions:

○ NUMBER AND BEDROOM SIZE OF UNITS.—

—For occupied units in the transferring project: The number of low-income and very low-income units and the configuration (i.e. bedroom size) provided by the transferring project shall be no less than when transferred to the receiving project or projects and the net dollar amount of Federal assistance provided to the transferring project shall remain the same in the receiving project or projects. —For unoccupied units in the transferring project: The Secretary may authorize a reduction in the number of dwelling units in the receiving project or projects to allow for a reconfiguration of bedroom sizes to meet current market demands, as determined by the Secretary and provided there is no increase in the project-based assistance budget authority.

○ The transferring project shall, as determined by the Secretary, be either physically obsolete or economically nonviable.

○ The receiving project or projects shall meet or exceed applicable physical standards established by the Secretary.

○ The owner or mortgagor of the transferring project shall notify and consult with the tenants residing in the transferring project and provide a certification of approval by all appropriate local governmental officials.

○ The tenants of the transferring project who remain eligible for assistance to be provided by the receiving project or projects shall not be required to vacate their units in the transferring project or projects until new units in the receiving project are available for occupancy.

○ The Secretary determines that this transfer is in the best interest of the tenants.

○ If either the transferring project or the receiving project or projects meets the condition specified in subsection (d)(2)(A),2 any lien on the receiving project resulting from additional financing obtained by the owner shall be subordinate to any FHA-insured mortgage lien transferred to, or placed on, such project by the Secretary, except that the Secretary may waive this requirement upon determination that such a waiver is necessary to facilitate the financing of acquisition, construction, and/or rehabilitation of the receiving project or projects.

2 Subsection (d)(2)(A) pertains to housing that is subject to a mortgage insured under the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).

○ If the transferring project meets the requirements of subsection (d)(2),3 the owner or mortgagor of the receiving project or projects shall execute and record either a continuation of the existing use agreement or a new use agreement for the project where, in either case, any use restrictions in such agreement are of no lesser duration than the existing use restrictions.

3 Subsection (d)(2) defines the term “multifamily housing project.”

○ The transfer does not increase the cost (as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended) of any FHA-insured mortgage, except to the extent that appropriations are provided in advance for the amount of any such increased cost.

HUD has exercised the transfer authority on a case-by-case basis, determining compliance with the statutory criteria based on the specific circumstances of the projects. Most of the statutory criteria are prescriptive, leaving little room for the exercise of agency discretion (for example, the requirement that the transfer not increase the cost of any FHA-insured mortgage). Others, however, are more generally phrased, allowing for HUD interpretation in applying the criteria (for example, the requirement that the transferring project be either physically obsolete or economically nonviable, “as determined by the Secretary”). Over time, HUD has developed uniform guidelines to facilitate the review of transfer requests and aid in determining compliance with the statutory criteria.

Section 214(e)(1) requires that HUD publish by notice in the Federal Register the terms and conditions for HUD approval of transfers, no later than 30 days before such notice takes effect. This notice is being issued in accordance with the publication requirements of Section 214(e)(1). HUD believes that publication of the criteria will assist project owners in determining whether a transfer is appropriate given the specific circumstances of their multifamily projects. Publication of the criteria will also facilitate HUD's review of transfer requests by helping owners formulate their requests in a manner that adequately address the statutory criteria.

Owners of multifamily housing projects, as defined by subsection (d)(2) of Section 214, who wish to request a transfer of rental assistance, debt, or income-based use restrictions under Section 214 should submit a package containing the relevant materials outlined below to the HUD Hub/Program Center or Regional Center/Satellite Office for review. Owners can submit packages for review on or after the effective date of this notice. HUD will issue a subsequent Housing notice detailing procedural submission requirements and will follow this notice with a proposed rule to solicit comment before regulatory codification of these criteria.

B. Statutory Terms and Conditions for HUD Approval of Transfer Requests

Commencing for transfer requests submitted pursuant to Section 214, HUD will evaluate the request, on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with the following criteria. The receiving property must be a multifamily housing project prior to or as a result of the Section 214 transfer. The receiving project may already be HUD-affiliated, meaning it has existing HUD project-based rental assistance, an existing use restriction, or debt (either HUD-held or FHA-insured). HUD will approve a transfer under Section 214 to a HUD-affiliated property if the receiving property is in compliance with all business agreements with the Department or has a HUD-approved plan in place to correct any identified deficiencies. The receiving property may be existing, under construction, newly constructed, undergoing substantial rehabilitation, or undergoing moderate rehabilitation. Before Section 8 project-based rental assistance is transferred to the receiving property, the property must exist and be habitable (as demonstrated by a certificate of occupancy or like documentation). The numbered items below track the statutory criteria and, where HUD has been granted flexibility, establishes requirements and guidance on how HUD will assess compliance with the statutory factors.

1. Number and Bedroom Size of Units

For occupied units in the transferring project: The number of low-income and very low-income units and the configuration (i.e. bedroom size) provided by the transferring project shall be no less than when transferred to the receiving project or projects. The receiving owner 4 must provide detailed information about the number of units and the corresponding unit size occupied by low-income and very-low income families respectively, as well as the proposed number of units for low and very-low income families and the corresponding unit configuration at the receiving project. In determining compliance with this requirement, HUD will consider the number of units occupied by low and very low-income families and their respective unit sizes, as well as whether the size of the occupied units is appropriate for the family size occupying those units. The net dollar amount of Federal assistance provided to the transferring project shall remain the same in the receiving project or projects. HUD Multifamily Hub/Program Center or Regional Center/Satellite Office staff will verify that the net dollar amount of Federal assistance transferred remains the same in the receiving project or projects.

4 The term “owner” refers to either the transferring or receiving owner unless specified.

For unoccupied units in the transferring project: HUD may authorize a reduction in the number of dwelling units in the receiving project or projects to allow for a reconfiguration of bedroom sizes to meet market demands, as demonstrated by the transferring owner, provided there is no increase in the project-based assistance budget authority. HUD Multifamily Hub/Program Center or Regional Center/Satellite Office staff will verify that the net dollar amount of Federal assistance transferred remains the same in the receiving project or projects. The transferring owner shall provide justification for a reduction in the number of dwelling units in one or more of the following ways:

a. Evidence of all efforts to market the unit type proposed for reduction and evidence of the demand within the geographic market area for the proposed new unit type. The documentation may include evidence of the transferring owner's efforts, including:

i. Property traffic reports.

ii. Advertising details.

iii. Age and/or income waivers requested.

iv. Local housing authority wait list information or other affordable housing provider contacts made demonstrating that there is minimal or no demand for the unit type.

b. Documentation that the average vacancy at the transferring property has been 25 percent or more over the past 24 months.

c. Any other documentation that a reduction in the number of dwelling units is necessary to meet market demand, and approved by HUD.

2. Physical Obsolescence or Economic Nonviability

Physical obsolescence shall be shown in one or more of the following ways:

a. A Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) physical inspection score of 30 or below.

b. Two or more consecutive REAC physical inspection scores of below 60.

c. Condemnation or other such notice by the local or state government rendering the property uninhabitable.

d. A taking through eminent domain.

e. Evidence that needed capital repairs cannot be made without the property losing financial viability.

f. Any other proof of physical obsolescence provided by the owner and approved by HUD.

Economic non-viability must be shown in one or more of the following ways:

a. A market analysis justifying the inability of the property to meet current HUD-imposed affordability restrictions.

b. A market analysis indicating limited to no market for the unit type(s).

c. A demonstrated average vacancy of 25 percent or more over the past 24 months.

d. Any other proof of economic non-viability provided by the owner and approved by HUD.

The transferring owner is required to certify in writing that the material submitted to demonstrate compliance with this criterion is true and accurate. The Multifamily Hub/Program Center will review all submitted information and verify its accuracy.

3. Applicable Physical Standards

The receiving project or projects must have a REAC physical inspection score of 60 or above. If the project does not have a current REAC physical inspection score, an inspection must be conducted prior to the transfer and the project must score 60 or above or have a HUD-approved plan in place to correct any deficiencies.

The receiving project must also meet all applicable accessibility requirements, including, but not limited to the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The owner must provide documentation acceptable to HUD that the receiving project is in compliance with all applicable accessibility requirements. The HUD Hub/Program Center or Regional Center/Satellite Office will review the submitted documentation and verify acceptability.

4. Notification and Consultation With Tenants and Local Governmental Officials

The transferring owner must give the tenants and legitimate tenant organization(s) written notification of the proposed transfer and provide a minimum 30-day comment period. HUD will not accept a Section 214 request for any project unless the transferring owner has notified the tenants of the proposed transfer and has provided the tenants with an opportunity to comment on the proposed transfer.

a. The notification should include the address and phone of the appropriate HUD office, including the specific division and/or name and phone number of a contact at the appropriate HUD office. The notification should be provided in appropriate formats as necessary to meet the needs of all, including persons with limited English proficiency and formats for persons with vision, hearing, and other communication-related disabilities (e.g., Braille, audio, and large type, sign language interpreters, assistive listening devices, etc.).

b. The notification will include a description of the impact of the request on tenants' rental assistance and tenant contributions. The notification must also explain the tenants' relocation rights and responsibilities, including the assistance that tenants may become eligible to receive under the Uniform Relocation Act if acquisition, rehabilitation or demolition are involved (see section five below). In addition, the notification must inform the tenants that if a Section 8 project-based rental assistance contract will be transferred, and it assists the unit they inhabit, they may be eligible for tenant protection vouchers if they choose not to relocate (see Section C below).

c. The notice must be delivered directly to each unit in the project or mailed to each tenant and posted in at least 3 places/common areas throughout the project, including any project office. In a project greater than 4 stories, the notice may be served either by delivery to each unit or by posting. If the posting method is used, the notice must be posted in at least three conspicuous places within each building in which the affected dwelling units are located.

i. The tenants (including any legal or other representatives acting for the tenants individually or as a group) have the right to inspect and copy the materials that the owner is required to submit to HUD for a period of 30 days from the date on which the notice is served to the tenants. Any tenant comments must be available in the project office during normal business hours for public reading and copying.

ii. The tenants have the right, during this period, to submit written comments on the transfer to the transferring owner and the appropriate HUD office. Tenant representatives may assist tenants in preparing these comments.

d. The transferring owner must hold a meeting with the tenants and legitimate tenant organizations to discuss the details of the notification and answer questions.

e. Upon completion of the tenant comment period, the transferring owner must review the comments submitted by the tenants and their representatives and prepare a written evaluation of the comments. Any negative comments must be addressed. The transferring owner must then submit the following materials to the appropriate HUD office at the time of submission of the request for transfer under Section 214:

i. A copy of the transferring owner's Notification to the tenants;

ii. A sign-in sheet from the tenant meeting;

iii. A copy of all the tenant comments;

iv. The transferring owner's evaluation of the tenant comments and any responses the owner gave to negative comments; and

v. A certification by the transferring owner that it has complied with all of the requirements of 24 CFR 245.410, 245.415, 245.416 through 245.419, as applicable, and 245.420. The transferring owner must identify any Fair Housing litigation settlement agreements, voluntary compliance agreements, or other remedial agreements signed by the owner and HUD. The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) will ensure there is no conflict between the agreements and the proposed transfer. If there is a conflict, the transferring owner may propose modifications to the remedial agreement as part of the transfer proposal.

The owner must also provide a certification of approval from the relevant local government officials, which may include but are not limited to the:

a. Local Mayor.

b. City Council.

c. Planning Commission.

d. Health and Human Services Commission.

e. Any other pertinent local government official or government body.

Although in some cases, a certification of approval may be required from multiple local governmental officials, there must be at least one certification of approval from at least one local government official in all cases to warrant approval of a request for transfer of assistance, debt, or use restrictions.

5. Relocation of Tenants

The tenants of the transferring project who remain eligible to receive assistance will not be required to vacate their units in the transferring project until new units in the receiving project are available for occupancy. If tenants must move as a direct result of acquisition, rehabilitation or demolition in connection with a transfer of assistance under Section 214, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (URA) may apply.

HUD will review tenant relocations and protections on a case-by case-basis to ensure tenants are protected from permanent displacement. Under no circumstances shall the residents pay for any relocation costs incurred as a result of the transfer and the resulting move to the receiving property. It is within the owner's discretion whether to pay relocation costs for relocations to locations other than the receiving property. A Section 214 transaction where the tenants' relocation expenses are not paid, will not be approved by HUD.

6. Best Interest of the Tenants

HUD will determine that the transfer is in the best interest of the tenants based on criteria including, but not limited to, the following:

a. The transfer will preserve affordable and/or assisted housing in a market area in need of such assistance/affordability.

b. The transfer complies with section C of this notice. The site and neighborhood requirements ensure that the receiving property is in a location that affords the tenants at the transferring property the same or a better property location than the transferring site.

c. All current tenants will receive the same level of assistance they are currently receiving. Tenants that move from the transferring project to the receiving project remain subject to their existing lease requirements and all occupancy rules. The receiving owner may not seek to terminate the lease of a tenant from the transferring project for actions that occurred prior to the Section 214 transfer but the tenant will be subject to ongoing eligibility requirements for actions that occur after the transfer. Any eviction procedures currently underway at the transferring project will not be affected by the transfer of budget authority.

d. In scenarios where a Section 8 HAP contract will be transferred, and a tenant assisted by the HAP contract objects to relocating to the receiving property, the tenant may be eligible to receive a tenant protection voucher, subject to the availability of appropriations. A tenant may receive a TPV, if they meet the eligibility requirements for voucher assistance and the unit that they currently reside in is supported by a Section 8 project-based rental assistance contract that is subject to transfer as part of the Section 214 transfer. The owner will notify the tenant of their potential eligibility to receive a TPV at the time of tenant notification and subsequently notify the Multifamily Hub/PC regarding how many TPVs are requested. If TPVs are needed, the Multifamily Hub/PC should work with the Public and Indian Housing (PIH) field office to follow the procedures outlined in PIH Notice 2001-41.

e. To determine if the Section 214 transfer is in the best interest of the tenants, the transferring owner must provide documentation that all tenants residing at the property at the time of the transfer are relocating to a property of greater economic solvency or better physical condition, or accepting a tenant protection voucher to move to a property that best meets their housing needs.

f. If the transferring property is not fully assisted by a Section 8 project-based rental assistance contract, HUD will approve or disapprove the transfer based upon its review of the information submitted and all tenant comments received.

g. If the transferring property is not fully assisted by a Section 8 project-based rental assistance contract, the transfer will only be approved if:

i. There are no tenants at the transferring property; or

ii. The property is occupied but the transfer will be to an immediately adjacent property; or

iii. The unassisted tenants would have to move in the absence of the Section 214 transfer (e.g., the site is contaminated, the property is or will be condemned, the property is being taken via eminent domain, etc.); or

iv. The transfer involves a 202 Direct Loan or a 202/811 Capital Advance or PRAC contract that must be transferred as a result of a state's response to the Olmstead Decision or state Medicaid/Medicare policies on congregate housing make it economically impossible to continue operating the property as originally conceived.

h. If the tenants must be relocated, they will/did receive the protections provided under the URA, or other assistance if the URA is not triggered. No tenants will be displaced as a result of the transfer.

7. Subordination of Liens

To demonstrate compliance, the receiving owner must submit one or more of the following as documentation:

a.Verification from the FHA lender that any lien on the receiving project is subordinate to any FHA-insured mortgage lien.

b. Other documentation as applicable.

A receiving owner may submit a waiver request if the receiving owner believes it is necessary that a lien(s) not be subordinate to the FHA insured mortgage to facilitate the financing of acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of the receiving project or projects. Such a request must demonstrate that the waiver is necessary to finance the transaction and that there is minimal risk to the FHA as a result of the waiver. HUD must approve all waiver requests.

8. Use Restrictions

If a use restriction is in place at the receiving project, the receiving owner must sign a new or amended use restriction that includes all income and eligibility restrictions of the transferring use restriction and runs for the duration of the transferring project's existing use restriction or the use restriction at the receiving project, whichever is longer.

9. No Increased FHA-Insured Mortgage Costs

Transfers must not increase the cost (as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1874) of any FHA-insured mortgage. HUD will consider the transfer of an FHA-insured mortgage, or Secretary-held formerly insured mortgage that is subsidized under either Section 221(d)(3)-(d)(5) with below market interest rates or Section 236. In addition, in order to avoid a claim against the General Insurance Fund, HUD may approve the transfer of a non-subsidized FHA-insured mortgage in combination with the transfer of a project-based rental assistance contract and/or a use restriction to a receiving project. However, HUD will only consider the transfer of a non-subsidized FHA-insured mortgage when the transferring project is in danger of imminent default on its FHA-insured mortgage due to a finding that the project is physically obsolete and/or economically nonviable in compliance with the criteria and process set forth in this notice.

C. Site and Neighborhood Standards for the Receiving Property

1. Transfers that involve Section 202 assistance must comply with the site and neighborhood requirements at 24 CFR 891.125.

2. Transfers that involve Section 811 assistance must comply with the site and neighborhood requirements at 24 CFR 891.125 and 24 CFR 891.320.

3. All other receiving sites must comply with the site and neighborhood requirements below. The receiving owner must submit the address of the proposed property with their proposal and HUD will determine whether the site meets the following requirements:

a. The site and neighborhood is suitable from the standpoint of facilitating and furthering full compliance with the applicable provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Executive Order 11063, and HUD regulations issued pursuant thereto.

b. The neighborhood must not be one that is seriously detrimental to family life or in which substandard dwellings or other undesirable conditions predominate, unless there is actively in progress a concerted program to remedy the undesirable conditions.

c. The housing must be accessible to social, recreational, educational, commercial, and health facilities and services, and other municipal facilities and services that are at least equivalent to those typically found in neighborhoods consisting largely of unassisted, standard housing of similar market rents.

d. If the receiving project is new construction, and is not covered by the existing regulations cited above for Section 202/811 properties, it may not be located in a racially mixed area if the project will cause a significant increase in the proportion of minority to nonminority residents in the area and may not be located in an area of minority concentration. If HUD determines that the receiving project will be located in an area of minority concentration, the receiving Owner must submit supporting data (e.g. census data, evidence of local revitalization efforts, etc.) in order for HUD to determine that they meet one of the exceptions below:

i. Sufficient, comparable opportunities exist for housing for minority households in the income range to be served by the proposed project, outside areas of minority concentration. Sufficient does not require that in every locality there be an equal number of assisted units within and outside of areas of minority concentration. Rather, application of this standard should produce a reasonable distribution of assisted units each year which over a period of several years will approach an appropriate balance of housing opportunities within and outside areas of minority concentration. An appropriate balance in any jurisdiction must be determined in light of local conditions affecting the range of housing choices available for very low-income minority households and in relation to the racial mix of the locality's population.

(A) Units may be considered to be comparable opportunities if they have the same household type and tenure type (owner/renter), require approximately the same total tenant payment, serve the same income group, are located in the same housing market, and are in standard condition.

(B) Application of this sufficient, comparable opportunities standard involves assessing the overall impact of HUD-assisted housing on the availability of housing choices for very low-income minority households, in and outside areas of minority concentration, and must take into account the extent to which the following factors are present, along with any other factor relevant to housing choice:

(1) A significant number of assisted housing units are available outside areas of minority concentration.

(2) There is significant integration of assisted housing projects constructed or rehabilitated in the past ten years, relative to the racial mix of the eligible population.

(3) There are racially integrated neighborhoods in the locality.

(4) Programs are operated by the locality to assist minority households, as applicable, that wish to find housing outside areas of minority concentration.

(5) Minority households have benefitted from local activities (e.g., acquisition and write-down of sites, tax relief programs for homeowners, acquisitions of units for use as assisted housing units) undertaken to expand choice for minority households (or families) outside of areas of minority concentration.

(6) A significant proportion of minority households, have been successful in finding units in nonminority areas under the Section 8 Certificate and Housing Voucher programs.

(7) Comparable housing opportunities have been made available outside areas of minority concentration through other programs.

ii. The project is necessary to meet overriding housing needs that cannot be met in that housing market area. Application of the overriding housing needs criterion, for example, permits approval of sites that are an integral part of an overall local strategy for the preservation or restoration of the immediate neighborhood and of sites in a neighborhood experiencing significant private investment that is demonstrably changing the economic character of the area (a “revitalizing area”). An overriding housing need, however, may not serve as the basis for determining that a site is acceptable if the only reason the need cannot otherwise be feasibly met is that discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, or national origin renders sites outside areas of minority concentration unavailable, or if the use of this standard in recent years has had the effect of circumventing the obligation to provide housing choice.

4. All Section 214 transactions (including those involving Section 202/811 properties) will be reviewed by HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research to assess whether there is sufficient demand for affordable rental housing in the receiving market area and to ensure that the transfer does not occur in neighborhoods with highly concentrated poverty.

Inter-Fair Market Rent (FMR) area transfers Intra-Fair Market Rent (FMR) area transfers For Inter-FMR Area transfers, there can be two types: (1) Transferring to a new metropolitan (metro) area; or (2) transferring to a new non-metro county For Intra-FMR transfers, there can be three types: (1) Within a metro area to a new neighborhood (Small Area Fair Market Rent (SAFMR)/Zip); (2) within a metro area, in the same neighborhood (SAFMR/Zip code); and (3) within a non-metro county. New Metro Neighborhood For moves into a metro area, the receiving property's neighborhood must be in a SAFMR area with a poverty rate of less than 30 percent, unless:
  • a. The receiving property is in a neighborhood receiving a Choice Neighborhoods Grant or is part of a significant state or local revitalization initiative that will result in new construction and substantial rehabilitation of mixed income housing; or
  • b. The receiving property is in a SAFMR area with a poverty rate between 30 and 40 percent; and either:
  • 1. Housing market activity within the SAFMR
  • Within a metro area to a new neighborhood (SAFMR/Zip code), the receiving property's neighborhood must be in a SAFMR area with a poverty rate of less than 30 percent, unless:
  • a. The receiving property is in a neighborhood receiving a Choice Neighborhoods Grant or is part of a significant state or local revitalization initiative that will include and result in new construction and substantial rehabilitation of mixed income housing; or
  • b. The receiving property is in a SAFMR area with a poverty rate between 30 and 40 percent; and either
  •  area would indicate that the area is revitalizing; or
  • 2. The poverty rate has seen significant recent decline
  • 1. The proposed receiving site has a higher SAFMR than the current site; or
  • 2. The proposed receiving site is considered immediately adjacent (within 1/2 mile) to the current site; or
  • 3. Housing market activity within the SAFMR area would indicate that the area is revitalizing; or
  • 4. The poverty rate has seen significant recent decline.
  • Old Metro Neighborhood N/A: By definition a transfer to a new FMR area will be a transfer to a new neighborhood Within a metro area, and in the same neighborhood (SAFMR/Zip code), the receiving property's neighborhood must be in a SAFMR area with a poverty rate of less than 30 percent, unless:
  • a. The receiving property is in a neighborhood receiving a Choice Neighborhoods Grant or is part of a significant state or local revitalization initiative that will result in new construction and substantial rehabilitation of mixed income housing; or
  • b. The SAFMR area is between 30 and 40 percent and at least 50 percent of the units at the receiving property are unassisted and either:
  • 1. The proposed receiving site is considered immediately adjacent (within 1/2 mile) to the current site; or
  • 2. Housing market activity within the SAFMR area would indicate that the area is revitalizing; or
  • 3. The poverty rate has seen significant recent decline.
  • Non-Metro For moves to a non-metro county, the receiving property must be in a county that has a poverty rate less than 30 percent, unless:
  • The county poverty rate is between 30 and 40 percent, and:
  • 1. The housing market activity within the county would indicate that the area is revitalizing; or
  • 2. The poverty rate has seen significant recent decline; or
  • 3. The transaction is part of a statewide portfolio preservation strategy operated by a Housing Finance Agency or is part of a significant state or local revitalization initiative that will result in new construction and substantial rehabilitation of mixed income housing
  • Within the same non-metro county, the receiving property must be in a county that has a poverty rate of less than 30 percent, unless:
  • The county poverty rate is between 30 and 40 percent and:
  • 1. The housing market activity within the county would indicate that the area is revitalizing; or
  • 2. The poverty rate has seen significant recent decline; or
  • 3. The transaction is part of a statewide portfolio preservation strategy operated by a Housing Finance Agency or is part of a significant state or local revitalization initiative that will result in new construction and substantial rehabilitation of mixed income housing.
  • D. Additional Requirements of the Receiving Owner Prior to Approval

    The submission to HUD requesting a transfer under Section 214 must include the following information from the receiving owner:

    1. Written confirmation of acceptance of the Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contract, Use Agreement, and/or debt, as applicable, and confirmation that the transfer is warranted by local demand for affordable housing.

    2. If the transfer involves project-based section 8 assistance, written evidence that the transfer of the HAP contract is warranted by local demands for affordable housing. Supporting documentation may include a market analysis showing eligible families in the area, a list of current tenants who are eligible for Section 8 assistance, or prospective tenants on waiting lists.

    3. If applicable, a written tenant selection plan, Tenant Relocation Plan and an Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan approved by HUD.

    4. A narrative detailing the capacity of the proposed owner and management agent of the receiving property to own, operate, manage, and if applicable, renovate affordable housing.

    5. The receiving owner must not be subject to any of the following actions that have not been resolved to HUD's satisfaction: (1) A charge from HUD concerning a systemic violation of the Fair Housing Act or a cause determination from a substantially equivalent state or local fair housing agency concerning a systemic violation of a substantially equivalent state or local fair housing law proscribing discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or familial status; and (2) A Fair Housing Act lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination or denial of rights to a group of persons raising an issue of general public interest pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 3614(a); or (3) A letter of finding identifying systemic noncompliance under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. HUD will determine if actions to resolve the charge, cause determination, lawsuit, or letter of findings are sufficient to resolve the matter. Examples of actions that would normally be considered sufficient to resolve the matter include, but are not limited to, current compliance with:

    a. A voluntary compliance agreement (VCA) signed by all the parties;

    b. A HUD-approved conciliation agreement signed by all the parties;

    c. A conciliation agreement signed by all the parties and approved by the state governmental or local administrative agency with jurisdiction over the matter;

    d. A consent order or consent decree; or

    e. A final judicial ruling or administrative ruling or decision.

    6. Documentation to assist HUD in an environmental review of the transfer request in accordance with environmental regulations and requirements at 24 CFR part 50. HUD will conduct the environmental review as required by part 50 prior to approving a transfer. HUD will document compliance on Form HUD-4128, “Environmental Assessment and Compliance Findings for the Related Laws.” Applicants are responsible for submitting environmental information and reports, and should use Chapter 9 of the MAP Guide and the HUD Environmental Review Web site (available at https://www.onecpd.info/environmental-review/) for guidance on environmental review information requirements. If the transfer is to a site that is currently HUD-assisted, HUD-insured or HUD-held, a new Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in accordance with ASTM E 1527-13 (or the most recent edition), including a Vapor Encroachment Screen in accordance with ASTM E 2600-10 (or the most recent edition), is not required, unless the transfer involves:

    a. Significant ground disturbance (digging) or construction not contemplated in the original application or incompatible with current engineering or institutional controls;

    b. Site expansion or addition;

    c. Transfer to a site for which a Phase I ESA in accordance with ASTM E 1527-05 (or a more recent edition) has not been prepared previously; or

    d. Any other activities which may result in contaminant exposure pathways not contemplated in the original application or incompatible with current engineering or institutional controls.

    After a request has been submitted to HUD, the requestor and other participants in the proposed transfer, including owners and contractors on the receiving project, may not undertake or commit funds for acquisition, rehabilitation, conversion, or construction of the receiving property until HUD has completed the environmental review and notified the requestor that the transfer to the receiving property is acceptable.

    E. Post Approval Requirements

    Once HUD has received and reviewed the materials above and approved the transfer under Section 214, the owner of the receiving project must do the following as applicable:

    1. If there is a use restriction at the transferring property, sign a new or amended use restriction that includes all income and eligibility restrictions of the transferring use restriction and runs for the duration of the transferring project's existing use restriction or the use restriction at the receiving project, whichever is longer.

    2. If the transfer involves project based section 8 assistance, renew the HAP contract for a 20-year term at the time of the transfer and attach the Preservation Exhibit agreeing to the automatic renewal of the Section 8 HAP contract at the end of the 20-year term, subject to annual appropriations, for a minimum of the time remaining on the HAP contract that was in effect prior to the transfer under Section 214.

    3. Receive approval through the Previous Participation Process including a 2530 review. The receiving owner must be in compliance with all business agreements for the receiving project and for any other HUD insured or assisted projects owned.

    4. Comply with all Departmental statutes, regulations, policies and procedures related to any assignment or amendment of a Section 8 HAP contract or other project-based rental assistance contract, required modification of loan documents and legal descriptions, or other necessary changes as a result of a Section 214 transfer.

    F. Environmental Review

    A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment has been made for this notice in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The FONSI is available for public inspection between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at this HUD Headquarters Building, an advance appointment to review the FONSI must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (not a toll free number).

    G. Information Collection Requirements

    The information collection requirements contained in this document have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB Control Number 2502-0608. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    H. Implementation

    This notice will become effective April 30, 2015. HUD will begin accepting requests for transfers pursuant to this notice on or after the effective date. For questions regarding the submission or status of a transfer request, interested parties should contact their HUD Multifamily Hub/Program Center. The list of HUD Multifamily Hubs and Program Centers is available at: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/mfh/hsgmfbus/abouthubspcs.

    Dated: March 17, 2015. Biniam Gebre, Acting Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06776 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9716 ] RIN 1545-BI65 Certain Employee Remuneration in Excess of $1,000,000 Under Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final regulations.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains final regulations relating to the deduction limitation for certain employee remuneration in excess of $1,000,000 under the Internal Revenue Code (Code). These regulations affect publicly held corporations.

    DATES:

    Effective date: These regulations are effective on April 1, 2015.

    Applicability date: For dates of applicability, see § 1.162-27(j)(2)(vi).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ilya Enkishev at (202) 317-5600 (not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On June 24, 2011, the Treasury Department and the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (proposed regulations) in the Federal Register (76 FR 37034, corrected by 76 FR 55321 on September 7, 2011) under section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). The proposed regulations clarified § 1.162-27(e)(2)(vi)(A) by providing that the plan under which an option or stock appreciation right is granted must specify the maximum number of shares with respect to which options or rights may be granted to any individual employee during a specified period. The proposed regulations also clarified that the general transition rule under § 1.162-27(f)(1) for a corporation that becomes a publicly held corporation applies to all compensation other than compensation specifically identified in § 1.162-27(f)(3).

    The Treasury Department and the IRS received written comments in response to the proposed regulations. All comments were considered and are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request. No public hearing on the proposed regulations was requested or held. After consideration of the comments received, the Treasury Department and the IRS adopt the proposed regulations, with modifications, as final regulations.

    Summary of Comments and Explanation of Provisions 1. Maximum Number of Shares With Respect To Which Options or Rights May Be Granted to Each Individual Employee

    Section 162(m)(1) precludes a deduction under chapter 1 of the Code by any publicly held corporation for compensation paid to any covered employee to the extent that the compensation for the taxable year exceeds $1,000,000. Section 162(m)(4)(C) provides that the deduction limitation does not apply to qualified performance-based compensation. Section 1.162-27(e)(1) provides that qualified performance-based compensation is compensation that meets all of the requirements of § 1.162-27(e)(2) through (e)(5).

    The proposed regulations clarified § 1.162-27(e)(2)(vi)(A) by providing that the plan under which an option or stock appreciation right is granted must state “the maximum number of shares with respect to which options or rights may be granted during a specified period to any individual [emphasis added] employee” (per-employee limitation requirement). The existing regulations provide that the per-employee limitation applies to “any employee” during a specified period. The proposed regulations also provided a corresponding clarification of the shareholder approval requirement under § 1.162-27(e)(4). Specifically, the proposed regulations clarified § 1.162-27(e)(4)(iv) to provide that compensation is not adequately described for purposes of the shareholder approval requirement unless the maximum number of shares on which grants may be made to any individual employee during a specified period and the exercise price of those options is disclosed to the shareholders of the corporation. The proposed regulations provided that the clarifications to § 1.162-27(e)(2)(vi)(A) and (e)(4)(iv) apply to amounts that are otherwise deductible for taxable years ending on or after June 24, 2011.

    Commenters suggested that these final regulations clarify that under § 1.162-27(e)(2)(vi)(A) a plan satisfies the per-employee limitation requirement if the plan specifies the maximum number of shares with respect to which any type of equity-based compensation may be granted to any individual employee during a specified period. Commenters explained that clarification is needed on whether the per-employee limitation may apply to all types of equity-based awards, not merely stock options and stock appreciation rights, which are the two types of equity-based awards described in § 1.162-27(e)(2)(vi)(A). In addition, commenters noted that a per-employee limitation on all types of equity-based awards would have the same effect as a per-employee limitation with respect to stock options and stock appreciation rights. In response to these comments, the final regulations modify § 1.162-27(e)(2)(vi)(A) to provide that a plan satisfies the per-employee limitation requirement if the plan specifies an aggregate maximum number of shares with respect to which stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, restricted stock units and other equity-based awards may be granted to any individual employee during a specified period under a plan approved by shareholders in accordance with § 1.162-27(e)(4). This clarification is not intended as a substantive change.

    One commenter suggested that the clarification to § 1.162-27(e)(2)(vi)(A) apply only to compensation attributable to stock options and stock appreciation rights granted under a plan that was submitted for shareholder approval after August 8, 2011 (that is, forty-five days after the publication of the proposed regulations) and not to grants under plans submitted for shareholder approval before August 9, 2011 (even if the grant was made after that date). Another commenter suggested that the clarification apply only after the first shareholder meeting that occurs at least 12 months after the publication of these final regulations. These commenters reasoned that a transition period is appropriate because a plan providing for an aggregate share limit (but not an explicit per-employee share limitation) arguably satisfies the per-employee limitation requirement under the existing regulations because no individual employee may receive shares in excess of the aggregate limit.

    These final regulations do not adopt either of these suggestions. The clarification to § 1.162-27(e)(2)(vi)(A) is not a substantive change. The transition rule in § 1.162-27(h)(3)(i) of the regulations provides that a plan providing for an aggregate limit, but not a per-employee limit, satisfies § 1.162-27(e)(2)(vi)(A) only if the plan was approved by shareholders before December 20, 1993, and only during a limited reliance period specified in § 1.162-27(h)(3)(i). Additionally, the legislative history to section 162(m) and the preamble to the 1993 Treasury Regulations (58 FR 66310) under section 162(m) provide for a limit on the maximum number of shares for which options or stock appreciation rights may be granted to individual employees. The preamble to the 1993 Treasury Regulations explains the reason for requiring a per-employee limitation: “Some have questioned why it would be necessary for the regulations to require an individual [emphasis added] employee limit on the number of the shares for which options or stock appreciation rights may be granted, where shareholder approval of an aggregate limit is obtained for securities law purposes. The regulations follow the legislative history, which suggests that a per-employee limit be required under the terms of the plan.” The preamble further explains that “a limit on the maximum number of shares for which individual employees may receive options or other rights is appropriate because it is consistent with the broader requirement that a performance goal include an objective formula for determining the maximum amount of compensation that an individual employee could receive.” Accordingly, these final regulations provide that the clarification to § 1.162-27(e)(2)(vi)(A) applies to compensation attributable to stock options and stock appreciation rights that are granted on or after June 24, 2011 (the date of publication of the proposed regulations).

    2. Compensation Payable Under Restricted Stock Units Paid by Companies That Become Publicly Held

    In general, § 1.162-27(f)(1) provides that when a corporation becomes publicly held, the section 162(m) deduction limitation “does not apply to any remuneration paid pursuant to a compensation plan or agreement that existed during the period in which the corporation was not publicly held.” Pursuant to § 1.162-27(f)(2), a corporation may rely on § 1.162-27(f)(1) until the earliest of: (i) The expiration of the plan or agreement; (ii) a material modification of the plan or agreement; (iii) the issuance of all employer stock and other compensation that has been allocated under the plan or agreement; or (iv) the first meeting of shareholders at which directors are to be elected that occurs after the close of the third calendar year following the calendar year in which an initial public offering (IPO) occurs or, in the case of a privately held corporation that becomes publicly held without an IPO, the first calendar year following the calendar year in which the corporation becomes publicly held. Section 1.162-27(f)(3) provides that the relief provided under § 1.162-27(f)(1) applies to any compensation received pursuant to the exercise of a stock option or stock appreciation right, or the substantial vesting of restricted property, granted under a plan or agreement described in § 1.162-27(f)(1) if the grant occurs on or before the earliest of the events specified in § 1.162-27(f)(2). The proposed regulations clarified that the transition rule in § 1.162-27(f)(1) applies to all compensation other than compensation specifically identified in § 1.162-27(f)(3). Specifically, the proposed regulations identified compensation payable under a restricted stock unit arrangement (RSU) or a phantom stock arrangement as being ineligible for the transition relief in § 1.162-27(f)(3). Therefore, the effect of the proposed regulations is that compensation payable under a RSU is eligible for transition relief only if it is paid, and not merely granted, before the earliest of the events specified in § 1.162-27(f)(2).

    Commenters suggested that compensation payable under a RSU should qualify for the transition relief in § 1.162-27(f)(3) because a RSU is economically similar to restricted stock. These final regulations do not adopt this suggestion. A RSU provides a right to receive an amount of compensation based on the value of stock that is payable in cash, stock, or other property (as defined in § 1.83-3(e)) upon the satisfaction of a vesting condition (such as a period of service). Restricted stock, by contrast, is property that has been transferred to the service provider on the date of grant subject to the satisfaction of a specified vesting condition. Restricted stock and RSU's are treated differently under the Code. RSU's generally are treated as nonqualified deferred compensation and may be subject to the rules under section 409A, whereas restricted stock is treated as property and is governed by the rules under section 83. Because compensation attributable to a RSU is in the nature of nonqualified deferred compensation (unlike restricted stock), compensation attributable to a RSU is not sufficiently similar to restricted property to receive the transition relief provided under § 1.162-27(f)(3). Accordingly, these final regulations adopt the proposed clarification to § 1.162-27(f)(3) without change.

    The proposed regulations provided that the clarification to § 1.162-27(f)(3) would apply on or after the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting the proposed regulations as final regulations. Commenters suggested that the clarification to § 1.162-27(f)(3) should apply to RSU's granted after the publication of final regulations and not merely to remuneration payable under a RSU after the date of publication. These final regulations adopt this suggestion. Accordingly, these final regulations provide that the clarification to § 1.162-27(f)(3) applies to remuneration otherwise deductible under a RSU that is granted on or after April 1, 2015.

    Proposed Effective/Applicability Date

    The clarifications to paragraphs (e)(2)(vi)(A), (e)(2)(vii) Example 9, and (e)(4)(iv) of this section apply to compensation attributable to stock options and stock appreciation rights that are granted on or after June 24, 2011. The clarification to § 1.162-27(f)(3) applies to any remuneration that is otherwise deductible resulting from a stock option, stock appreciation right, restricted stock (or other property), restricted stock unit, or any other form of equity-based remuneration that is granted on or after April 1, 2015.

    Special Analyses

    It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the proposed regulations preceding these regulations were submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

    Drafting Information

    The principal author of these final regulations is Ilya Enkishev, Office of the Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

    PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 2. In § 1.162-27 paragraphs (e)(2)(vi)(A), (e)(2)(vii) Example 9, (e)(4)(iv), and (f)(3) are revised and paragraph (j)(2)(vi) is added to read as follows:
    § 1.162-27 Certain employee remuneration in excess of $1,000,000.

    (e) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (vi) * * *

    (A) In general. Compensation attributable to a stock option or a stock appreciation right is deemed to satisfy the requirements of this paragraph (e)(2) if the grant or award is made by the compensation committee; the plan under which the option or right is granted states the maximum number of shares with respect to which options or rights may be granted during a specified period to any individual employee; and, under the terms of the option or right, the amount of compensation the employee may receive is based solely on an increase in the value of the stock after the date of the grant or award. A plan may satisfy the requirement to provide a maximum number of shares with respect to which stock options and stock appreciation rights may be granted to any individual employee during a specified period if the plan specifies an aggregate maximum number of shares with respect to which stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, restricted stock units and other equity-based awards that may be granted to any individual employee during a specified period under a plan approved by shareholders in accordance with § 1.162-27(e)(4). If the amount of compensation the employee may receive under the grant or award is not based solely on an increase in the value of the stock after the date of grant or award (for example, in the case of restricted stock, or an option that is granted with an exercise price that is less than the fair market value of the stock as of the date of grant), none of the compensation attributable to the grant or award is qualified performance-based compensation under this paragraph (e)(2)(vi)(A). Whether a stock option grant is based solely on an increase in the value of the stock after the date of grant is determined without regard to any dividend equivalent that may be payable, provided that payment of the dividend equivalent is not made contingent on the exercise of the option. The rule that the compensation attributable to a stock option or stock appreciation right must be based solely on an increase in the value of the stock after the date of grant or award does not apply if the grant or award is made on account of, or if the vesting or exercisability of the grant or award is contingent on, the attainment of a performance goal that satisfies the requirements of this paragraph (e)(2).

    (vii) * * *

    Example 9.

    Corporation V establishes a stock option plan for salaried employees. The terms of the stock option plan specify that no individual salaried employee shall receive options for more than 100,000 shares over any 3-year period. The compensation committee grants options for 50,000 shares to each of several salaried employees. The exercise price of each option is equal to or greater than the fair market value of a share of V stock at the time of each grant. Compensation attributable to the exercise of the options satisfies the requirements of paragraph (e)(2)(vi) of this section. If, however, the terms of the options provide that the exercise price is less than fair market value of a share of V stock at the date of grant, no compensation attributable to the exercise of those options satisfies the requirements of this paragraph (e)(2) unless issuance or exercise of the options was contingent upon the attainment of a preestablished performance goal that satisfies this paragraph (e)(2). If, however, the terms of the plan also provide that Corporation V could grant options to purchase no more than 900,000 shares over any 3-year period, but did not provide a limitation on the number of shares that any individual employee could purchase, then no compensation attributable to the exercise of those options satisfies the requirements of paragraph (e)(2)(vi) of this section.

    (4) * * *

    (iv) Description of compensation. Disclosure as to the compensation payable under a performance goal must be specific enough so that shareholders can determine the maximum amount of compensation that could be paid to any individual employee during a specified period. If the terms of the performance goal do not provide for a maximum dollar amount, the disclosure must include the formula under which the compensation would be calculated. Thus, if compensation attributable to the exercise of stock options is equal to the difference between the exercise price and the current value of the stock, then disclosure of the maximum number of shares for which grants may be made to any individual employee during a specified period and the exercise price of those options (for example, fair market value on date of grant) would satisfy the requirements of this paragraph (e)(4)(iv). In that case, shareholders could calculate the maximum amount of compensation that would be attributable to the exercise of options on the basis of their assumptions as to the future stock price.

    (f) * * *

    (3) Stock-based compensation. Paragraph (f)(1) of this section will apply to any compensation received pursuant to the exercise of a stock option or stock appreciation right, or the substantial vesting of restricted property, granted under a plan or agreement described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section if the grant occurs on or before the earliest of the events specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. This paragraph does not apply to any form of stock-based compensation other than the forms listed in the immediately preceding sentence. Thus, for example, compensation payable under a restricted stock unit arrangement or a phantom stock arrangement must be paid, rather than merely granted, on or before the occurrence of the earliest of the events specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section in order for paragraph (f)(1) of this section to apply.

    (j) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (vi) The modifications to paragraphs (e)(2)(vi)(A), (e)(2)(vii) Example 9, and (e)(4)(iv) of this section concerning the maximum number of shares with respect to which a stock option or stock appreciation right that may be granted and the amount of compensation that may be paid to any individual employee apply to compensation attributable to stock options and stock appreciation rights that are granted on or after June 24, 2011. The last two sentences of § 1.162-27(f)(3) apply to remuneration that is otherwise deductible resulting from a stock option, stock appreciation right, restricted stock (or other property), restricted stock unit, or any other form of equity-based remuneration that is granted on or after April 1, 2015.

    Approved: March 9, 2015. John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Mark D. Mazur, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy).
    [FR Doc. 2015-07386 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 301 [TD-9718] RIN 1545-BH37 Period of Limitations on Assessment for Listed Transactions Not Disclosed Under Section 6011 AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final regulations.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains final regulations relating to the exception to the general three-year period of limitations on assessment under section 6501(c)(10) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) for listed transactions that a taxpayer failed to disclose as required under section 6011. These final regulations affect taxpayers who fail to disclose listed transactions in accordance with section 6011.

    DATES:

    Effective date: These regulations are effective March 31, 2015.

    Applicability date: For dates of applicability, see § 301.6501(c)-1(g)(9).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Danielle Pierce of the Office of Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), at (202) 317-6845 (not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The collection of information contained in these regulations has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) under control number 1545-1940. The collection of information in these final regulations is in § 301.6501(c)-1(g)(5). This information is required to provide the IRS, under penalties of perjury, with the information necessary to properly determine the taxpayer's applicable period of limitations. The collection of information in these final regulations is the same as the collection of information in Revenue Procedure 2005-26 (2005-1 CB 965), which was previously reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1545-1940. The collection of information in § 301.6501(c)-1(g)(6) is the same as the collection of information required under section 6112. See § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b).

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.

    Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

    Background

    This document contains amendments to the Procedure and Administration Regulations (26 CFR part 301) under section 6501(c) relating to exceptions to the period of limitations on assessment. Section 6501(a) provides that, except as otherwise provided, if a return is filed, tax with respect to that return must be assessed within 3 years from the later of the date the return was filed or the original due date of the return. Section 6501(c) contains several exceptions to the general three-year period of limitations on assessment.

    Section 6501(c)(10) was added to the Code by section 814 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Public Law 108-357 (118 Stat. 1418, 1581 (2004)) (AJCA), enacted on October 22, 2004. Section 6501(c)(10) provides that, if a taxpayer fails to disclose a listed transaction as required under section 6011, the time to assess tax against the taxpayer with respect to that transaction will end no earlier than one year after the earlier of (A) the date on which the taxpayer furnishes the information required under section 6011, or (B) the date that the material advisor furnishes to the Secretary, upon written request, the information required under section 6112 with respect to the taxpayer related to the listed transaction. Section 6112 requires material advisors to maintain lists of advisees and other information with respect to reportable transactions, including listed transactions, and to furnish that information to the IRS upon request. The term “material advisor” is defined in § 301.6111-3(b). Section 6112 and § 301.6112-1 provide guidance relating to the preparation, content, maintenance, retention, and furnishing of lists by material advisors. Under this provision, if neither the taxpayer nor a material advisor furnishes the requisite information, the period of limitations on assessment will remain open, and the tax with respect to the listed transaction may be assessed at any time. Section 6501(c)(10) is effective for taxable years with respect to which the period of limitations on assessment did not expire prior to October 22, 2004.

    Section 6501(c)(10) applies when a taxpayer does not properly disclose a listed transaction (as defined in section 6707A(c)(2)) as required under section 6011. Taxpayers are required under section 6011 and the regulations thereunder (collectively referred to as the “section 6011 disclosure rules”) to disclose certain information regarding each reportable transaction in which the taxpayer participated. See Treas. Reg. §§ 1.6011-4; 20.6011-4; 25.6011-4; 31.6011-4; 53.6011-4; 54.6011-4; and 56.6011-4. Among the transactions that are reportable are “listed transactions.” See Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-4(b)(2). Under the section 6011 disclosure rules, a listed transaction is a transaction that is the same as, or substantially similar to, a transaction that the IRS has determined to be a tax avoidance transaction and identified by notice, regulation, or other form of published guidance. Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-4(b)(2). For a list of transactions the IRS has identified as listed transactions, see Notice 2009-59, 2009-31 IRB 1. See § 601.601(d)(2).

    If the section 6011 disclosure rules require a taxpayer to disclose a listed transaction, the taxpayer must complete and file a disclosure statement in accordance with the section 6011 disclosure rules. The section 6011 disclosure rules currently require that Form 8886, “Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement” (or successor form), be used as the disclosure statement and be completed in accordance with the instructions to the form. The Form 8886 (or successor form) generally must be attached to the taxpayer's original or amended tax return for each taxable year for which a taxpayer participates in a listed transaction. Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-4(e)(1). If a listed transaction results in a loss that is carried back to a prior year, Form 8886 (or successor form) must be attached to the taxpayer's application for tentative refund or amended tax return for that prior year. The taxpayer also must send a copy of Form 8886 (or successor form) to the IRS Office of Tax Shelter Analysis (OTSA), generally at the same time that a disclosure statement pertaining to a particular listed transaction is first filed. Under the current rules, when a transaction is identified as a listed transaction after the date on which the taxpayer files a tax return (including an amended return) for a taxable year reflecting the taxpayer's participation in the listed transaction and before the end of the period of limitations for assessment of tax for any taxable year in which the taxpayer participated in the listed transaction, then the taxpayer must file Form 8886 (or successor form) with OTSA within 90 calendar days after the date the transaction became a listed transaction.

    If a taxpayer does not disclose its participation in a listed transaction in accordance with all of the requirements of the section 6011 disclosure rules and section 6501(c)(10) applies, then the time to assess tax related to the listed transaction will expire no earlier than the earlier of (1) one year after the date on which the information described in section 6501(c)(10)(A) is provided, or (2) one year after the date on which the information described in section 6501(c)(10)(B) is provided.

    The IRS and Treasury Department issued Rev. Proc. 2005-26 (2005-1 CB 965) on April 25, 2005, to provide interim guidance on section 6501(c)(10). The revenue procedure prescribes how taxpayers and material advisors should disclose listed transactions that were not properly disclosed under section 6011 in order to start the one-year period under section 6501(c)(10).

    On October 7, 2009, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-160871-04) relating to the section 6501(c)(10) exception to the general three-year period of limitations on assessment that applies if a taxpayer fails to disclose a listed transaction as required under section 6011 was published in the Federal Register (74 FR 51527). The preamble of the notice of proposed rulemaking provided that taxpayers may continue to rely on the rules in Rev. Proc. 2005-26 until temporary or final regulations are issued under section 6501(c)(10). No comments were received from the public in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. No public hearing was requested or held. The proposed regulations are adopted as revised by this Treasury decision.

    Explanation of Revisions

    These final regulations adopt the proposed regulations with four substantive clarifications. First, § 301.6501(c)-1(g)(1) is clarified with respect to the interaction of the one-year period of limitations on assessment after disclosure of a listed transaction under section 6501(c)(10) and the general three-year period of limitations on assessment under section 6501(a) (or other applicable limitations period under section 6501). The one-year period in section 6501(c)(10) serves only to extend the existing limitations period. For example, if the general section 6501(a) three-year period of limitations on assessment applies and the one-year period under section 6501(c)(10) ends prior to the expiration of the section 6501(a) three-year period, the assessment period for the tax year remains open until the expiration of the general three-year period. Proposed section 301.6501(c)-1(g)(8), Example 5 (renumbered as Example 6 in the final regulations) and Example 9, illustrated this point. However, the text of the proposed regulations did not specifically provide that in no case will the period of limitations be shorter than the period of limitations that would apply without regard to application of section 301.6501(c)-1(g). A sentence was added to the end of § 301.6501(c)-1(g)(1) to clarify this point.

    Second, the final regulations revise § 301.6501(c)-1(g)(6) to clarify when a disclosure will be considered a disclosure by a material advisor for purposes of section 6501(c)(10)(B) so that the one-year period of limitations on assessment will begin. Under section 6501(c)(10)(B), if a taxpayer fails to disclose information related to a listed transaction, the time to assess tax will end no earlier than one year after the date that “a material advisor meets the requirements of section 6112 with respect to a request by the Secretary under section 6112(b) relating to such transaction with respect to such taxpayer.” This means that unless a material advisor furnishes the information with respect to the taxpayer in response to an IRS written request for the list under section 6112(b) and in accordance with section 6112, the one-year period under section 6501(c)(10)(B) will not begin. Accordingly, receipt of information from a person other than the material advisor with respect to the taxpayer will not satisfy the requirements of a disclosure for purposes of section 6501(c)(10)(B). The final regulations add § 301.6501(c)-1(g)(6)(ii)(A) to clarify that, consistent with the statutory language, except in limited circumstances related to dissolution or liquidation of an entity that is a material advisor or in the case of a designation agreement, only receipt of information furnished by the material advisor will satisfy the requirements for disclosure under § 301.6501(c)-1(g)(6).

    Third, the final regulations clarify that information received by the IRS in circumstances other than in response to a section 6112 request, such as in response to an Information Document Request in a section 6700 investigation or as a result of a summons enforcement proceeding, will not begin the one-year period under § 301.6501(c)-1(g)(6). Proposed section 301.6501(c)-1(g)(8), Example 10, illustrated this point. However, the text of the proposed regulations did not specifically address this point. The final regulations have been revised to add § 301.6501(c)-1(g)(6)(ii)(B) to provide that information not furnished in response to a section 6112 request will not satisfy the requirements under § 301.6501(c)-1(g)(6) even if provided by the material advisor, unless furnished to OTSA in accordance with § 301.6112-1(d) in the case of material advisors that are liquidated or dissolved.

    Fourth, the final regulations clarify that if a material advisor furnishes information described in § 301.6112-1(e), but does not furnish information identifying the taxpayer as a person who entered into the listed transaction, the requirements of section 6501(c)(10)(B) will not have been satisfied for that taxpayer. Proposed section 301.6501(c)-1(g)(8), Example 11, illustrated this point. However, the text of the proposed regulations did not specifically address this point. The final regulations have been revised to add § 301.6501(c)-1(g)(6)(ii)(C) for clarification.

    In addition to the revisions described above, other minor clarifying changes have been made that are not intended to be substantive.

    These final regulations apply to taxable years for which the period of limitation on assessment under section 6501, including the period of limitation set forth in section 6501(c)(10) and § 301.6510(c)-1(g), did not expire before March 31, 2015, the date these final regulations are published in the Federal Register.

    Effect on Other Documents

    Upon the publication of these final regulations under section 6501(c)(10) in the Federal Register, Rev. Proc. 2005-26 (2005-1 CB 965), is superseded for taxable years with respect to which the period of limitations on assessment under section 6501 (including section 6501(c)(10)) did not expire before March 31, 2015. Rev. Proc. 2005-26 (2005-1 CB 965) will continue to apply to taxable years with respect to which the period of limitations on assessment expired on or after April 8, 2005, and before March 31, 2015, although as provided in the proposed regulations, taxpayers could rely on the rules in the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-160871-04) under section 6501(c)(10) published in the Federal Register (74 FR 51527) on October 7, 2009, until these final rules are published in this Treasury decision.

    Special Analyses

    It has been determined that these final regulations are not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13653. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations.

    It is hereby certified that the collection of information contained in these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6). Section 6501(c)(10) applies when taxpayers fail to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under section 6011 with respect to listed transactions. The Treasury Department and the IRS do not know the exact number and types of taxpayers that fail to comply with those requirements. However, although the Treasury Department and the IRS are aware that many tax avoidance transactions involve pass-through entities, when pass-through entities are utilized, the entities are not ultimately liable for the tax; rather, the taxpayers subject to section 6501(c)(10) will be the individuals and corporations owning, directly or indirectly, the interests in the pass-through entities. Therefore, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that these final regulations will not affect a substantial number of small entities.

    In addition, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that any impact on small entities resulting from these final regulations will not be significant. Most of the information required under these final regulations is already required by other regulations or forms, namely, § 1.6011-4, § 301.6112-1, and Form 8886, “Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement.” The only new information required to be submitted to the IRS is a cover letter, which must contain a reference to the tax returns and taxable year(s) at issue and a statement signed under penalty of perjury. The cover letter should take minimal time and expense to prepare. Therefore, the additional requirement of the cover letter should not significantly increase the burden on taxpayers. Based on these facts, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that these final regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding this regulation was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

    Drafting Information

    The principal author of these regulations is Danielle Pierce of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301

    Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is amended as follows:

    PART 301—PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 2. Section 301.6501(c)-1 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 301.6501(c)-1 Exceptions to general period of limitations on assessment and collection.

    (g) Listed transactions—(1) In general. If a taxpayer is required to disclose a listed transaction under section 6011 and the regulations thereunder and does not do so in the time and manner required, then the time to assess any tax attributable to that listed transaction for the taxable year(s) to which the failure to disclose relates (as defined in paragraph (g)(3)(iii) of this section) will not expire before the earlier of one year after the date on which the taxpayer makes the disclosure described in paragraph (g)(5) of this section or one year after the date on which a material advisor makes a disclosure described in paragraph (g)(6) of this section. In no case will the operation of this paragraph (g) cause the period of limitations on assessment to expire any earlier than the period that would have otherwise applied under this section determined without regard to this paragraph (g)(1).

    (2) Limitations period if paragraph (g)(5) or (g)(6) is satisfied. If one of the disclosure provisions described in paragraphs (g)(5) or (6) of this section is satisfied, then the tax attributable to the listed transaction may be assessed at any time before the expiration of the limitations period that would have otherwise applied under this section (determined without regard to paragraph (g)(1) of this section) or the period ending one year after the date that one of the disclosure provisions described in paragraphs (g)(5) or (6) of this section was satisfied, whichever is later. If both disclosure provisions are satisfied, the one-year period will begin on the earlier of the dates on which the provisions were satisfied. Paragraph (g)(1) of this section does not apply to any period of limitations on assessment that expired before the date on which the failure to disclose the listed transaction under section 6011 occurred.

    (3) Definitions—(i) Listed transaction. The term listed transaction means a transaction described in section 6707A(c)(2) of the Code and § 1.6011-4(b)(2) of this chapter.

    (ii) Material advisor. The term material advisor means a person described in section 6111(b)(1) of the Code and § 301.6111-3(b) of this chapter.

    (iii) Taxable year(s) to which the failure to disclose relates. The taxable year(s) to which the failure to disclose relates are each taxable year that the taxpayer participated (as defined under section 6011 and the regulations thereunder) in a transaction that was identified as a listed transaction and the taxpayer failed to disclose the listed transaction as required under section 6011. If the taxable year in which the taxpayer participated in the listed transaction is different from the taxable year in which the taxpayer is required to disclose the listed transaction under section 6011, the taxable year(s) to which the failure to disclose relates are each taxable year that the taxpayer participated in the transaction.

    (4) Application of paragraph with respect to pass-through entities. In the case of taxpayers who are partners in partnerships, shareholders in S corporations, or beneficiaries of trusts and are required to disclose a listed transaction under section 6011 and the regulations thereunder, paragraph (g)(1) of this section will apply to a particular partner, shareholder, or beneficiary if that particular partner, shareholder, or beneficiary does not disclose within the time and in the form and manner provided by section 6011 and § 1.6011-4(d) and (e), regardless of whether the partnership, S corporation, or trust or another partner, shareholder, or beneficiary discloses in accordance with section 6011 and the regulations thereunder. Similarly, because paragraph (g)(1) of this section applies on a taxpayer-by-taxpayer basis, the failure of a partnership, S corporation, or trust that has a disclosure obligation under section 6011 and that does not disclose within the time or in the form and manner provided by § 1.6011-4(d) and (e) will not cause paragraph (g)(1) of this section to apply to a partner, shareholder or beneficiary of the entity. Instead, the application of paragraph (g)(1) of this section to a partner, shareholder, or beneficiary will be determined based on whether the particular partner, shareholder, or beneficiary satisfied their disclosure obligation under section 6011 and the regulations thereunder.

    (5) Taxpayer's disclosure of a listed transaction that the taxpayer did not properly disclose under section 6011—(i) In general—(A) Method of disclosure. The taxpayer must complete the most current version of Form 8886, “Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement” (or successor form), available on the date the taxpayer attempts to satisfy this paragraph (g)(5) in accordance with § 1.6011-4(d) and the instructions to the Form in effect on that date. The taxpayer must indicate on the Form 8886 that the form is being submitted for purposes of section 6501(c)(10) and the tax return(s) and taxable year(s) for which the taxpayer is making a section 6501(c)(10) disclosure. Disclosure under this paragraph (g)(5) will only be effective for the tax return(s) and taxable year(s) that the taxpayer specifies on the Form 8886 that he or she is attempting to disclose for purposes of section 6501(c)(10). If the Form 8886 contains a line for this purpose, then the taxpayer must complete the line in accordance with the instructions to that form. Otherwise, the taxpayer must include on the top of Page 1 of the Form 8886, and each copy of the form, the following statement: “Section 6501(c)(10) Disclosure” followed by the tax return(s) and taxable year(s) for which the taxpayer is making a section 6501(c)(10) disclosure. For example, if the taxpayer did not properly disclose its participation in a listed transaction the tax consequences of which were reflected on the taxpayer's Form 1040 for the 2005 taxable year, the taxpayer must include the following statement: “Section 6501(c)(10) Disclosure; 2005 Form 1040” on the form. The taxpayer must submit the properly completed Form 8886 and a cover letter, which must be completed in accordance with the requirements set forth in paragraph (g)(5)(i)(B) of this section, to the Office of Tax Shelter Analysis (OTSA). The taxpayer is permitted, but not required, to file an amended return with the Form 8886 and cover letter. Separate Forms 8886 and separate cover letters must be submitted for each listed transaction the taxpayer did not properly disclose under section 6011. If the taxpayer participated in one listed transaction over multiple years, the taxpayer may submit one Form 8886 (or successor form) and cover letter and indicate on that form all of the tax returns and taxable years for which the taxpayer is making a section 6501(c)(10) disclosure. If a taxpayer participated in more than one listed transaction, then the taxpayer must submit separate Forms 8886 (or successor form) for each listed transaction, unless the listed transactions are the same or substantially similar, in which case all the listed transactions may be reported on one Form 8886.

    (B) Cover letter. (1) A cover letter to which a Form 8886 is to be attached must identify the tax return(s) and taxable year(s) for which the taxpayer is making a section 6501(c)(10) disclosure and include the following statement signed under penalties of perjury by the taxpayer:

    Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this reportable transaction disclosure statement and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, this reportable transaction disclosure statement is true, correct, and complete.

    (2) If the Form 8886 is prepared by a paid preparer, in addition to the statement under penalties of perjury signed by the taxpayer, the Form 8886 must also include the following statement signed under penalties of perjury by the paid preparer.

    Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this reportable transaction disclosure statement and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, this reportable transaction disclosure statement is true, correct, and complete. This declaration is based on all information of which I, as paid preparer, have any knowledge.

    (C) Taxpayer under examination or Appeals consideration. A taxpayer making a disclosure under paragraph (g)(5) of this section with respect to a taxable year under examination or Appeals consideration by the IRS must satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (g)(5)(i)(A) and (B) of this section and also submit a copy of the submission to the IRS examiner or Appeals officer examining or considering the taxable year(s) to which the disclosure under this paragraph (g) relates.

    (D) Date the one-year period will begin to run if paragraph (g)(5) satisfied. Unless an earlier expiration is provided for in paragraph (g)(6) of this section, the time to assess tax under paragraph this (g) will not expire before one year after the date on which the Secretary is furnished the information from the taxpayer that satisfies all the requirements of paragraphs (g)(5)(i)(A) and (B) of this section and, if applicable, paragraph (g)(5)(i)(C) of this section. If the taxpayer does not satisfy all of the requirements on the same date, the one-year period will begin on the date that the IRS is furnished the information that, together with prior disclosures of information, satisfies the requirements of this paragraph (g)(5). For purposes of this paragraph (g)(5), the information is deemed furnished on the date the IRS receives the information.

    (ii) Exception for returns other than annual returns. The IRS may prescribe alternative procedures to satisfy the requirements of this paragraph (g)(5) in a revenue procedure, notice, or other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin for circumstances involving returns other than annual returns.

    (6) Material advisor's disclosure of a listed transaction not properly disclosed by a taxpayer under section 6011—(i) In general. In response to a written request of the IRS under section 6112, a material advisor with respect to a listed transaction must furnish to the IRS the information described in section 6112 and § 301.6112-1(b) in the form and manner prescribed by section 6112 and § 301.6112-1(e). If the information the material advisor furnishes identifies the taxpayer as a person who entered into the listed transaction, regardless of whether the material advisor provides the information before or after the taxpayer's failure to disclose the listed transaction under section 6011, then the requirements of this paragraph (g)(6) will be satisfied for that taxpayer. The requirements of this paragraph (g)(6) will be considered satisfied even if the material advisor furnishes the information required under section 6112 to the IRS after the date prescribed in section 6708 or published guidance relating to section 6708.

    (ii) Paragraph (g)(6) not satisfied—(A) Information not furnished by a material advisor or a person permitted to act on behalf of the material advisor. The requirements of this paragraph (g)(6) are not satisfied for a taxpayer unless the information is furnished by—

    (1) A person who is a material advisor (as defined in paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of this section) with respect to the taxpayer,

    (2) A person who is providing the information pursuant to § 301.6112-1(d) on behalf of a dissolved or liquidated material advisor with respect to the taxpayer, or

    (3) a person who is providing the information on behalf of a material advisor with respect to the taxpayer under a designation agreement in accordance with § 301.6112-1(f).

    (B) No written request by IRS. The requirements of this paragraph (g)(6) are not satisfied unless the information is furnished in response to a written request made by the IRS to the material advisor under section 6112 (except as provided in § 301.6112-1(d) with respect to a list furnished to OTSA within 60 days after dissolution or liquidation of a material advisor).

    (C) Information furnished does not identify the taxpayer. The requirements of this paragraph (g)(6) are not satisfied for a taxpayer unless the information furnished identifies the taxpayer as a person who entered into the listed transaction.

    (iii) Date the one-year period will begin if paragraph (g)(6) is satisfied. Unless an earlier expiration is provided for in paragraph (g)(5) of this section, the time to assess tax under this paragraph (g) will expire one year after the date on which the material advisor satisfies the requirements of paragraph (g)(6)(i) of this section with respect to the taxpayer. For purposes of this paragraph (g)(6), information is deemed to be furnished on the date that, in response to a request under section 6112, the IRS receives the information from a material advisor that satisfies the requirements of paragraph (g)(6)(i) of this section with respect to the taxpayer.

    (7) Tax assessable under this section. If the period of limitations on assessment for a taxable year remains open under this section, the Secretary has authority to assess any tax with respect to the listed transaction in that year. This includes, but is not limited to, adjustments made to the tax consequences claimed on the return plus interest, additions to tax, additional amounts, and penalties that are related to the listed transaction or adjustments made to the tax consequences. This also includes any item to the extent the item is affected by the listed transaction even if it is unrelated to the listed transaction. An example of an item affected by, but unrelated to, a listed transaction is the threshold for the medical expense deduction under section 213 that varies if there is a change in an individual's adjusted gross income. An example of a penalty related to the listed transaction is the penalty under section 6707A for failure to file the disclosure statement reporting the taxpayer's participation in the listed transaction. Examples of penalties related to the adjustments made to the tax consequences are the accuracy-related penalties under sections 6662 and 6662A.

    (8) Examples. The rules of this paragraph (g) are illustrated by the following examples:

    Example 1.

    No requirement to disclose under section 6011. P, an individual, is a partner in a partnership that entered into a transaction in 2001 that was the same as or substantially similar to the transaction identified as a listed transaction in Notice 2000-44 (2000-2 CB 255). P claimed a loss from the transaction on his Form 1040 for the tax year 2001. P filed the Form 1040 prior to June 14, 2002. P did not disclose his participation in the listed transaction because P was not required to disclose the transaction under the applicable section 6011 regulations (TD 8961), which were effective for any transaction entered into before January 1, 2001 and any transaction entered into on or after January 1, 2001 that was reported on a return of the taxpayer filed on or before June 14, 2002. Although the transaction was a listed transaction and P did not disclose the transaction, P had no obligation to include on any return or statement any information with respect to a listed transaction within the meaning of section 6501(c)(10) because TD 8961 only applied to corporations, not individuals. Accordingly, section 6501(c)(10) does not apply.

    Example 2.

    Taxable year to which the failure to disclose relates when transaction is identified as a listed transaction after first year of participation and the transaction must be disclosed with the return next filed. (i) On December 30, 2003, Y, a corporation, enters into a transaction that at the time is not a reportable transaction. On March 15, 2004, Y timely files its 2003 Form 1120, reporting the tax consequences from the transaction. On April 1, 2004, the IRS issues Notice 2004-31 that identifies the transaction as a listed transaction. Y also reports tax consequences from the transaction on its 2004 Form 1120, which it timely filed on March 15, 2005. Y did not attach a completed Form 8886 to its 2004 Form 1120 and did not send a copy of the form to OTSA. The general three-year period of limitations on assessment for Y's 2003 and 2004 taxable years would expire on March 15, 2007, and March 17, 2008, respectively.

    (ii) The period of limitations on assessment for Y's 2003 taxable year was open on the date the transaction was identified as a listed transaction. Under the applicable section 6011 regulations (TD 9108), which were effective for transactions entered into before August 3, 2007, Y should have disclosed its participation in the transaction with its next filed return, which was its 2004 Form 1120, but Y did not disclose its participation. Y's failure to disclose with the 2004 Form 1120 relates to taxable years 2003 and 2004. Section 6501(c)(10) operates to keep the period of limitations on assessment open for the 2003 and 2004 taxable years with respect to the listed transaction until at least one year after the date Y satisfies the requirements of paragraph (g)(5) of this section or a material advisor satisfies the requirements of paragraph (g)(6) of this section with respect to Y.

    Example 3.

    Taxable year to which the failure to disclose relates when transaction is identified as a listed transaction after the first year of participation and the transaction must be disclosed 90 days after the transaction became a listed transaction. (i) In January 2015, A, a calendar year taxpayer, enters into a transaction that at the time is not a listed transaction. A reports the tax consequences from the transaction on its individual income tax return for 2015 timely filed on April 15, 2016. The time for the IRS to assess tax against A under the general three-year period of limitations for A's 2015 taxable year would expire on April 15, 2019. A only participated in the transaction in 2015. On March 7, 2017, the IRS identifies the transaction as a listed transaction. A does not file the Form 8886 with OTSA by June 5, 2017.

    (ii) The period of limitations on assessment for A's 2015 taxable year was open on the date the transaction was identified as a listed transaction. Under the current section 6011 regulations (TD 9350) which are effective for transactions entered into on or after August 3, 2007, A must disclose its participation in the transaction by filing a completed Form 8886 with OTSA on or before June 5, 2017, which is 90 days after the date the transaction became a listed transaction. A did not disclose the transaction as required. A's failure to disclose relates to taxable year 2015 even though the obligation to disclose did not arise until 2017. Section 6501(c)(10) operates to keep the period of limitations on assessment open for the 2015 taxable year with respect to the listed transaction until at least one year after the date A satisfies the requirements of paragraph (g)(5) of this section or a material advisor satisfies the requirements of paragraph (g)(6) of this section with respect to A.

    Example 4.

    Requirements of paragraph (g)(6) satisfied. Same facts as Example 3, except that on April 5, 2019, the IRS hand delivers to Advisor J, who is a material advisor, a section 6112 request related to the listed transaction. Advisor J furnishes the required list with all the information required by section 6112 and § 301.6112-1, including all the information required with respect to A, to the IRS on May 8, 2019. The submission satisfies the requirements of paragraph (g)(6) even though Advisor J furnishes the information outside of the 20-business-day period provided in section 6708. Accordingly, under section 6501(c)(10), the period of limitations with respect to A's taxable year 2015 will end on May 8, 2020, one year after the IRS received the required information, unless the period of limitations remains open under another exception. Any tax for the 2015 taxable year not attributable to the listed transaction must be assessed by April 15, 2019.

    Example 5.

    Requirements of paragraph (g)(5) also satisfied. Same facts as Examples 3 and 4, except that on May 23, 2019, A files a properly completed Form 8886 and signed cover letter with OTSA both identifying that the section 6501(c)(10) disclosure relates to A's Form 1040 for 2015. A satisfied the requirements of paragraph (g)(5) of this section as of May 23, 2019. Because the requirements of paragraph (g)(6) were satisfied first as described in Example 4, under section 6501(c)(10) the period of limitations will end on May 8, 2020 (one year after the requirements of paragraph (g)(6) were satisfied) instead of May 23, 2020 (one year after the requirements of paragraph (g)(5) were satisfied). Any tax for the 2015 taxable year not attributable to the listed transaction must be assessed by April 15, 2019.

    Example 6.

    Period to assess tax remains open under another exception. Same facts as Examples 3, 4, and 5, except that on April 1, 2019, A signed Form 872, consenting to extend, without restriction, its period of limitations on assessment for taxable year 2015 under section 6501(c)(4) until July 15, 2020. In that case, although under section 6501(c)(10) the period of limitations would otherwise expire on May 8, 2020, the IRS may assess tax with respect to the listed transaction (as well as any other item on the return covered by the Form 872 extension) at any time up to and including July 15, 2020, pursuant to section 6501(c)(4). Section 6501(c)(10) operates to extend the assessment period but not to shorten any other applicable assessment period.

    Example 7.

    Requirements of (g)(5) not satisfied. In 2015, X, a corporation, enters into a listed transaction. On March 15, 2016, X timely files its 2015 Form 1120, reporting the tax consequences from the transaction. X does not disclose the transaction as required under section 6011 when it files its 2015 return. The failure to disclose relates to taxable year 2015. On February 13, 2017, X completes and files a Form 8886 with respect to the listed transaction with OTSA but does not submit a cover letter, as required. The requirements of paragraph (g)(5) of this section have not been satisfied. Therefore, the time to assess tax against X with respect to the transaction for taxable year 2015 remains open under section 6501(c)(10).

    Example 8.

    Section 6501(c)(10) applies to keep one partner's period of limitations on assessment open. T and S are partners in a partnership, TS, that enters into a listed transaction in 2015. T and S each receive a Schedule K-1 from TS on April 11, 2016. On April 15, 2016, TS, T and S each file their 2015 returns. Under the applicable section 6011 regulations, TS, T, and S each are required to disclose the transaction. TS attaches a completed Form 8886 to its 2015 Form 1065 and sends a copy of Form 8886 to OTSA. Neither T nor S files a disclosure statement with their respective returns nor sends a copy to OTSA on April 15, 2016. On May 17, 2016, T timely files a completed Form 8886 with OTSA pursuant to § 1.6011-4(e)(1). T's disclosure is timely because T received the Schedule K-1 within 10 calendar days before the due date of the return and, thus, T had 60 calendar days to file Form 8886 with OTSA. TS and T properly disclosed the transaction in accordance with the applicable regulations under section 6011, but S did not. S's failure to disclose relates to taxable year 2015. The time to assess tax with respect to the transaction against S for 2015 remains open under section 6501(c)(10) even though TS and T disclosed the transaction.

    Example 9.

    Section 6501(c)(10) satisfied before expiration of three-year period of limitations under section 6501(a). Same facts as Example 8, except that on August 26, 2016, S satisfies the requirements of paragraph (g)(5) of this section. No material advisor satisfied the requirements of paragraph (g)(6) of this section with respect to S on a date earlier than August 26, 2016. Under section 6501(c)(10), the period of time in which the IRS may assess tax against S with respect to the listed transaction would expire no earlier than August 26, 2017, one year after the date S satisfied the requirements of paragraph (g)(5). As the general three-year period of limitations on assessment under section 6501(a) does not expire until April 15, 2019, the IRS will have until that date to assess any tax with respect to the listed transaction.

    Example 10.

    No section 6112 request. B, a calendar year taxpayer, entered into a listed transaction in 2015. B did not comply with the applicable disclosure requirements under section 6011 for taxable year 2015; therefore, section 6501(c)(10) applies to keep the period of limitations on assessment open with respect to the tax related to the transaction until at least one year after B satisfies the requirements of paragraph (g)(5) of this section or a material advisor satisfies the requirements of paragraph (g)(6) of this section with respect to B. In June 2016, the IRS conducts a section 6700 investigation of Advisor K, who is a material advisor to B with respect to the listed transaction. During the course of the investigation, the IRS obtains the name, address, and TIN of all of Advisor K's clients who engaged in the transaction, including B. The information provided does not satisfy the requirements of paragraph (g)(6) with respect to B because the information was not provided pursuant to a section 6112 request. Therefore, the time to assess tax against B with respect to the transaction for taxable year 2015 remains open under section 6501(c)(10).

    Example 11.

    Section 6112 request but the requirements of paragraph (g)(6) are not satisfied with respect to B. Same facts as Example 10, except that on January 9, 2017, the IRS sends by certified mail a section 6112 request to Advisor L, who is another material advisor to B with respect to the listed transaction. Advisor L furnishes some of the information required under section 6112 and § 301.6112-1 to the IRS for inspection on January 17, 2017. The list includes information with respect to many clients of Advisor L, but it does not include any information with respect to B. The submission does not satisfy the requirements of paragraph (g)(6) of this section with respect to B. Therefore, the time to assess tax against B with respect to the transaction for taxable year 2015 remains open under section 6501(c)(10).

    Example 12.

    Section 6112 submission made before taxpayer failed to disclose a listed transaction. Advisor M, who is a material advisor, advises C, an individual, in 2015 with respect to a transaction that is not a reportable transaction at that time. C files its return claiming the tax consequences of the transaction on April 15, 2016. The time for the IRS to assess tax against C under the general three-year period of limitations for C's 2015 taxable year would expire on April 15, 2019. The IRS identifies the transaction as a listed transaction on November 3, 2017. On December 7, 2017, the IRS hand delivers to Advisor M a section 6112 request related to the transaction. Advisor M furnishes the information to the IRS on December 29, 2017. The information contains all the required information with respect to Advisor M's clients, including C. C does not disclose the transaction on or before February 1, 2018, as required under section 6011 and the regulations under section 6011. Advisor M's submission under section 6112 satisfies the requirements of paragraph (g)(6) of this section even though it occurred prior to C's failure to disclose the listed transaction. Thus, under section 6501(c)(10), the period of limitations to assess tax against C with respect to the listed transaction will end on December 29, 2018 (one year after the requirements of paragraph (g)(6) of this section were satisfied), unless the period of limitations remains open under another exception.

    Example 13.

    Transaction removed from the category of listed transactions after taxpayer failed to disclose. D, a calendar year taxpayer, entered into a listed transaction in 2015. D did not comply with the applicable disclosure requirements under section 6011 for taxable year 2015; therefore, section 6501(c)(10) applies to keep the period of limitations on assessment open with respect to the tax related to the transaction until at least one year after D satisfies the requirements of paragraph (g)(5) of this section or a material advisor satisfies the requirements of paragraph (g)(6) of this section with respect to D. In 2017, the IRS removes the transaction from the category of listed transactions because of a change in law. Section 6501(c)(10) continues to apply to keep the period of limitations on assessment open for D's taxable year 2015.

    Example 14.

    Taxes assessed with respect to the listed transaction. (i) F, an individual, enters into a listed transaction in 2015. F files its 2015 Form 1040 on April 15, 2016, but does not disclose his participation in the listed transaction in accordance with section 6011 and the regulations under section 6011. F's failure to disclose relates to taxable year 2015. Thus, section 6501(c)(10) applies to keep the period of limitations on assessment open with respect to the tax related to the listed transaction for taxable year 2015 until at least one year after the date F satisfies the requirements of paragraph (g)(5) of this section or a material advisor satisfies the requirements of paragraph (g)(6) of this section with respect to F.

    (ii) On July 2, 2020, the IRS completes an examination of F's 2015 taxable year and disallows the tax consequences claimed as a result of the listed transaction. The disallowance of a loss increased F's adjusted gross income. Due to the increase of F's adjusted gross income, certain credits, such as the child tax credit, and exemption deductions were disallowed or reduced because of limitations based on adjusted gross income. In addition, F now is liable for the alternative minimum tax. The examination also uncovered that F claimed two deductions on Schedule C to which F was not entitled. Under section 6501(c)(10), the IRS can timely issue a statutory notice of deficiency (and assess in due course) against F for the deficiency resulting from (1) disallowing the loss, (2) disallowing the credits and exemptions to which F was not entitled based on F's increased adjusted gross income, and (3) being liable for the alternative minimum tax. In addition, the IRS can assess any interest and applicable penalties related to those adjustments, such as the accuracy-related penalty under sections 6662 and 6662A and the penalty under section 6707A for F's failure to disclose the transaction as required under section 6011 and the regulations under section 6011. The IRS cannot, however, pursuant to section 6501(c)(10), assess the increase in tax that would result from disallowing the two deductions on F's Schedule C because those deductions are not related to, or affected by, the adjustments concerning the listed transaction.

    (9) Effective/applicability date. The rules of this paragraph (g) apply to taxable years with respect to which the period of limitations on assessment under section 6501 (including subsection (c)(10)) did not expire before March 31, 2015.

    John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: March 10, 2015. Mark J. Mazur, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy).
    [FR Doc. 2015-07378 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0066] Notice of Enforcement for Special Local Regulations; RiverFest; Port Neches, TX AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce Special Local Regulations for the RiverFest Power Boat races on the Neches River in Port Neches, TX from 2 p.m. on May 1, 2015, through 6 p.m. on May 3, 2015. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, participating vessels, non-participating vessels and other users of the waterway. During the enforcement periods no person or vessel may enter the zone established by the Special Local Regulation without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) Port Arthur or his designated on-scene Patrol Commander.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 100.801 will be enforced from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. on May 1, 2015; and from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. on May 2 and 3, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this notice of enforcement, call or email Mr. Scott Whalen, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur, TX; telephone 409-719-5086, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce Special Local Regulation for the annual boat races in 33 CFR 100.801(60) on May 1, 2015, from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and on May 2 and 3, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.801, a vessel may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene Patrol Commander. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.801 and 33 U.S.C. 1233. In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with notification of this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners, Safety Marine Information Broadcasts, and Marine Safety Information Bulletins.

    If the Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene Patrol Commander determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: March 12, 2015. R. S. Ogrydziak, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Port Arthur.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07319 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Parts 140 and 143 46 CFR Parts 110 and 111 [Docket No. USCG-2012-0850] RIN 1625-AC00 Electrical Equipment in Hazardous Locations AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is issuing regulations applicable to newly constructed mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs), floating outer continental shelf (OCS) facilities, and vessels other than offshore supply vessels (OSVs) that engage in OCS activities. The regulations expand the list of acceptable national and international explosion protection standards and add the internationally accepted independent third-party certification system, the International Electrotechnical Commission System for Certification to Standards relating to Equipment for use in Explosive Atmospheres (IECEx), as an accepted method of testing and certifying electrical equipment intended for use in hazardous locations. The regulations also provide owners and operators of existing U.S. MODUs, floating OCS facilities, vessels other than OSVs, and U.S. tank vessels that carry flammable or combustible cargoes, the option of following this compliance regime as an alternative to the requirements contained in existing regulations.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective April 30, 2015.

    The Director of the Federal Register has approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule, effective April 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2012-0850 and are available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket online by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the instructions on that Web site.

    Viewing material incorporated by reference. You may make arrangements to view this material by calling the Coast Guard's Office of Regulations and Administrative Law at 202-372-3870 or by emailing [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Raymond Martin, Systems Engineering Division (CG-ENG-3), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1384, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents for Preamble I. Abbreviations II. Regulatory History III. Background IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes V. Incorporation by Reference VI. Regulatory Analyses A. Regulatory Planning and Review B. Small Entities C. Assistance for Small Entities D. Collection of Information E. Federalism F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act G. Taking of Private Property H. Civil Justice Reform I. Protection of Children J. Indian Tribal Governments K. Energy Effects L. Technical Standards M. Environment I. Abbreviations ABS American Bureau of Shipping ANSI American National Standards Institute ASTM ASTM International ATEX (Directive) Protective Systems Intended for use in Potentially Explosive Atmospheres BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement CFR Code of Federal Regulations CSA Canadian Standards Association DHS Department of Homeland Security Ex Designation of explosion-protected electrical apparatus complying with IEC standards ExCB Ex Certification Body FR Federal Register IEC International Electrotechnical Commission IECEx IEC Certification to Standards relating to Equipment for use in Explosive Atmospheres IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IMO International Maritime Organization ISA International Society of Automation ISO International Organization for Standardization MSC Marine Safety Center MODU Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit NAVSEA Naval Sea Systems Command NEC National Electrical Code NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFPA National Fire Protection Association NOSAC National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee NPFC Naval Publications and Forms Center NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking OCS Outer Continental Shelf OMB Office of Management and Budget OSV Offshore Supply Vessel RP Recommended Practice ULS Ultra Low Sulfur U.S. United States U.S.C. United States Code II. Regulatory History Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On June 24, 2013, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register entitled Electrical Equipment in Hazardous Locations (78 FR 37760). The NPRM proposed requiring third-party testing and certification of electrical equipment in hazardous locations by a Coast Guard-accepted independent third-party laboratory in order to achieve uniform standards between U.S. and foreign vessels and floating facilities. We received several requests to extend the 90-day comment period until November 30, 2013. We granted these requests and announced the extension in the Federal Register (78 FR 58989) on September 25, 2013. We received 23 comment letters on the NPRM, and considered all of these comments in developing this final rule. In section VI below, we inserted a table that summarizes the changes between the NPRM and the final rule.

    Advisory Committee

    In April 2013, the Coast Guard tasked the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee (NOSAC) to review and comment on a notice of policy we published in the Federal Register (77 FR 71607) on December 3, 2012. The policy recommended that electrical equipment on foreign mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs) that had never operated on the outer continental shelf (OCS), but were intended to do so, meet Chapter 6 of the 2009 MODU Code of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and obtain equipment certification under the International Electrotechnical Commission Certification to Standards relating to Equipment for use in Explosive Atmospheres (IECEx) System. While NOSAC was reviewing the notice of policy, we published the Electrical Equipment in Hazardous Locations NPRM (78 FR 37760) in the Federal Register. The NPRM proposed regulations similar to the recommendations contained in the notice of policy. Unlike the notice of policy, however, the NPRM was not limited to foreign MODUs but applied to all vessels and facilities that had never operated on the outer continental shelf (OCS) but intended to. Further, the NPRM proposed requiring that certification under the IECEx System be conducted by Coast Guard accepted independent laboratories in order to facilitate Coast Guard oversight of those laboratories. NOSAC provided comments on the notice of policy and on the NPRM, and those comments were considered in developing this final rule.

    III. Background

    A key finding of the Coast Guard's investigation of the MODU DEEPWATER HORIZON explosion, fire, and sinking emphasized the importance of proper electrical equipment installations in hazardous locations during oil drilling exploration on U.S. and foreign MODUs. The Coast Guard, therefore, reviewed the existing regulations for hazardous locations; specifically, the requirements for electrical equipment testing and certification and the standards applicable to U.S. and foreign MODUs, floating OCS facilities, and vessels that engage in OCS activities.

    Currently, electrical equipment on U.S. vessels and floating facilities that operate on the OCS must comply with 46 CFR subpart 111.105. This subpart adopts international and national standards and requires the equipment to be tested and certified by a Coast Guard-accepted independent third-party laboratory.

    In contrast, foreign vessels and floating facilities that engage in OCS activities must meet the requirements of 33 CFR subchapter N. Currently, foreign floating OCS facilities must meet the same engineering standards as U.S. floating OCS facilities, while foreign vessels engaged in OCS activities on the U.S. OCS do not meet the same engineering standards as U.S. vessels. While the Coast Guard supports the development and adoption of international vessel safety standards, the existing safety requirements of the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS) do not completely account for the specifics of hydrocarbon production, processing, storage, and handling systems, and the 2009 IMO MODU Code, which provides a recommended SOLAS equivalency for MODUs, is not a legally binding instrument. For electrical equipment in hazardous locations, we believe this rule is necessary to ensure that all vessels engaged in OCS activities meet the same, OCS-specific safety standards. In this final rule, therefore, we require that new foreign MODUs, floating OCS facilities and vessels meet the same standards for explosion protection in hazardous areas as their U.S. counterparts before operating on the OCS. Additionally, through this final rule, we expand the list of acceptable standards for existing and new vessels and facilities.

    IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes

    As noted above, we received 23 comment letters in response to the NPRM. Additionally, NOSAC submitted a report to the Coast Guard that included their comments on the NPRM. We considered all of these comments in the development of this final rule. The comments and our responses have been grouped into subject-matter categories below. In cases where the comment resulted in a change to the regulations previously proposed in the NPRM, the change is specifically identified and discussed.

    Implementation Date

    The NPRM's proposed implementation date was 30 days after publication of the final rule. Fourteen comments stated that was unreasonable. These commenters explained that over 200 MODUs were either under contract, under construction or due to be constructed in the next 5 years and that the costs of changing the specifications for the electrical equipment located in hazardous locations would be much greater than that indicated in Section VI of the NPRM.

    We agree. While the estimates provided correspond to the global MODU population currently under construction, a majority of which have not historically sought to operate on the OCS, the associated burden on vessels under construction is real. Thus, we have delayed the implementation date of the requirements of 46 CFR subpart 111.108. The requirements of 46 CFR subpart 111.108 will apply to MODUs, floating OCS facilities, and vessels, other than offshore supply vessels regulated under 46 CFR subchapter L, that are constructed after April 2, 2018 and that engage in OCS activities. Estimates of the affected foreign flagged vessel population reside in the regulatory analysis section of this final rule. The definition of “constructed” has been added to 33 CFR 140.10 and 46 CFR 110.15-1(b). It is consistent with the existing definition for “constructed” found in 46 CFR 170.055(f). Constructed means either the date a keel is laid or the date that construction identified with the vessel or facility has begun.

    Existing U.S. MODUs, floating OCS facilities, and vessels, other than offshore supply vessels (OSVs), and U.S. tank vessels that carry flammable or combustible cargoes may immediately use the expanded list of explosion protection standards and IECEx certification regime identified in this final rule in lieu of the existing requirements in §§ 111.105-1 through 111.105-15.

    2009 IMO MODU Code

    The NPRM proposed the adoption of a selection of explosion protection standards and certification schemes. Thirteen comments suggested that the proposed regulations were unnecessary and that compliance with the 2009 IMO MODU Code should be sufficient for all vessels. Many of these comments further noted that the 2009 IMO MODU Code already requires certification by an independent testing laboratory. We agree in part. The Coast Guard supports the development and adoption of international vessel safety standards. The Coast Guard believes the 2009 IMO MODU Code provides helpful guidance for the design and engineering of MODUs, particularly in supplementing SOLAS with standards specific to hydrocarbon production, processing, storage, and handling systems, and should be given appropriate effect by flag administrations. However, the 2009 IMO MODU Code is not a legally binding instrument and by its terms does not apply to vessels that are not MODUs. Additionally, there are differing interpretations of the “independent testing laboratory” certification contained in the 2009 MODU Code. As the coastal state with jurisdiction, we find that it is a necessary and reasonable safety measure to require that newly constructed foreign vessels and floating facilities that engage in OCS activities have uniform safety standards for explosion protection in hazardous locations.

    Cost of Compliance for Existing Foreign Vessels and Facilities

    Ten comments addressed the cost of bringing into compliance with the proposed rule existing MODUs that are currently not operated on the OCS but the owners or operators intend them to do so. Those comments stated that the cost of bringing the existing vessels into compliance would likely exceed the cost published in the NPRM. In addition to required equipment recertification and replacement costs, there would be a loss of revenue during necessary downtime for replacement of equipment that could equal or exceed all other costs.

    We recognize that the costs to retrofit an existing MODU could be prohibitive depending on the design, construction and type of operation of an individual MODU. Because of this, we decided to make the final rule applicable to vessels and facilities that are constructed after April 2, 2018 and that engage in OCS activities. Existing vessels and facilities will continue to be subject to the regulations and standards effective at the time of their construction.

    Similarly, one comment recommended that the Coast Guard address electrical equipment in hazardous locations on MODUs currently on the OCS. The Coast Guard disagrees. As explained earlier, this rule does not require any existing vessel or facility to meet the requirements of subpart 111.108 because the costs to retrofit existing equipment could be prohibitive depending on the design, construction and type of operation of an individual vessel or facility.

    One comment stated that the Coast Guard should address electrical equipment in hazardous locations on foreign oil and chemical tankers and gas carriers entering U.S. ports. These vessels are outside the scope of this rulemaking, which is confined to vessels and facilities engaged in OCS activities. Additionally, foreign oil and chemical tankers and gas carriers are already subject to international standards and to Coast Guard inspection for compliance with those standards.

    Sister Vessels of Vessels Already Operating on the OCS

    Four comments requested that the final rule not apply to sister vessels of vessels already operating on the OCS. They argued that these vessels are identical in design to those existing vessels that the Coast Guard is excluding from the requirements of this final rule.

    Under the NPRM, vessels new to the OCS would have been subject to the new requirements, whereas vessels and facilities that had previously operated on the OCS would not. In this final rule, we have changed the applicability to include only those vessels and facilities that are constructed after April 2, 2018 and that engage in OCS activities. This final rule, therefore, does not place new requirements on any existing vessels or facilities nor any vessel or facility that is constructed on or before April 2, 2018. Existing vessels or facilities or those constructed on or before April 2, 2018 will remain subject to the regulations and standards effective at the time of their construction and will remain subject to Coast Guard inspection. Any vessel or facility constructed after the implementation date will be subject to the requirements of 46 CFR subpart 111.108 before operating on the OCS.

    Coast Guard Independent Laboratory Requirement

    Eleven comments addressed the proposed requirement in 46 CFR 111.108-3 requiring the testing and certification of electrical equipment in hazardous locations by an independent laboratory. The definition of independent laboratory in the Coast Guard's Electrical Engineering regulations is contained in 46 CFR 110.15-1, and means a laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard using the independent laboratory criteria found in 46 CFR 159.010. Commenters stated that this requirement is burdensome and unnecessary, particularly for Ex Certification Bodies (ExCBs) and Ex Testing Laboratories operating under the IECEx System. Additionally, these commenters were concerned that there were not enough independent laboratories accepted by the Coast Guard, particularly within the IECEx System, to meet the demands for equipment certifications necessary to comply with this final rule. Further, the commenters stated that requiring Coast Guard-accepted independent laboratories undermines use of international standards, foreign flag administrations, and Recognized Organizations.

    We disagree. First, there are differing interpretations of the “independent testing laboratory” certification contained in the 2009 MODU Code. U.S. MODUs, vessels and floating facilities, have been subject to independent third-party testing for over 30 years because we believe it is a critically important element in preventing accidental explosions in hazardous locations. As the coastal state with jurisdiction, we find that it is a necessary and reasonable safety measure to require that newly constructed foreign vessels and floating facilities that engage in OCS activities have uniform safety standards for explosion protection in hazardous locations. This final rule, therefore, requires compliance with uniform explosion protection standards and certification regimes. The requirement to use Coast Guard-accepted independent laboratories allows the Coast Guard reasonable oversight of laboratories located worldwide and is consistent with our existing regulations for U.S. vessels and facilities engaged in OCS activities. Currently, the majority of ExCBs are Coast Guard-accepted independent laboratories. We have contacted all ExCBs to suggest that they apply for acceptance. We expect that if the demand is present, additional ExCBs will apply for acceptance. Because this final rule applies to new vessels and facilities constructed after April 2, 2018, we expect system designers, equipment manufacturers, and independent laboratories will be able to smoothly transition from existing international standards to the requirements of this final rule. Finally, the existing SOLAS standards do not completely account for the particularities of vessels designed and constructed for OCS activities, and the 2009 IMO MODU Code is neither mandatory nor applicable to all vessels. Therefore, implementation of a domestic standard for electrical equipment in hazardous locations is necessary to ensure that all vessels engaged in U.S. OCS activities meet uniform safety standards particular to OCS activities and does not undermine international standards or organizations.

    In a separate rulemaking, the Coast Guard published an interim rule on August 18, 2014 (79 FR 48894) for U.S. offshore supply vessels greater than 6,000 GT ITC. That interim rule also recognized the IECEx System for certification of electrical equipment in hazardous locations. Unlike section 111.108-3(b)(3) of this final rule, 46 CFR 111.106-3(b)(3)(iii) of the interim rule does not require certification of electrical equipment in hazardous locations to be done by a Coast Guard accepted independent laboratory. The Coast Guard recognizes the inconsistency between 46 CFR 111.106-3(b)(3)(iii) of the interim rule and 46 CFR 111.108-3(b)(3) of this final rule and intends to align 46 CFR 111.106-3(b)(3)(iii) with this final rule in a future rulemaking.

    ATEX Equipment Certified by a Third-Party Independent Laboratory

    Eight comments suggested the Coast Guard accept electrical equipment with certification issued under the European Commission Directive (94/9/EC) on equipment and Protective Systems Intended for use in Potentially Explosive Atmospheres (ATEX Directive or ATEX).

    We disagree. ATEX certification does not require independent third party testing for all types of equipment. It also does not ensure that electrical equipment installed in hazardous locations is fully tested to relevant standards. When foreign MODUs and vessels have electrical equipment installed in hazardous locations that is not independently tested, there is not the same level of safety for explosion protection in hazardous areas as required of U.S. vessels and floating facilities that operate on the OCS and that are required to meet 46 CFR subpart 111.105. The ATEX Directive is a European conformity assessment scheme designed to facilitate trade within Europe and is based on “Essential Health and Safety Requirements.” Additionally, the ATEX Directive is currently not applicable to seagoing vessels or MODUs and it is our experience with ATEX certification that it can be difficult to determine the extent of testing performed by the “notified body 1  ”.

    1 A notified body is an organization “appointed by EU Member States, either for approval and monitoring of the manufacturers' quality assurance system or for direct product inspection.” http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/glossary/index_en.htm, retrieved February 24, 2014.

    It is also important to recognize that some ATEX certified electrical equipment may be acceptable under subpart 111.108 if it can be demonstrated that the electrical equipment has been fully tested and certified to the applicable standards contained in 46 CFR subchapter J by an independent laboratory as defined in 46 CFR 110.15-1. Frequently, equipment with ATEX certification also has certifications acceptable under 46 CFR 111.108-3 of this final rule.

    Two comments requested that the Coast Guard clarify a statement in CG-ENG Policy Letter No. 01-13, Alternate Design and Equipment Standard for Floating Offshore Installations (FOI) and Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading (FPSO) Units on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, of June 26, 2013. For hazardous locations, the policy letter states that electrical equipment certified under the ATEX scheme will not be accepted by the Coast Guard. As explained above, if the equipment is also certified in accordance with one of the acceptable methods listed in 46 CFR 111.108-3, in addition to its ATEX certification, then the equipment is acceptable under 46 CFR 111.108-3 of this final rule.

    Class I, Special Division 1 Hazardous Locations

    Three comments said the proposed use of Class I, Special Division 1 in 46 CFR 111.108-3(e) may cause confusion as it is not a term recognized by the National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA) standard, NFPA 70, National Electrical Code (NEC), We disagree and have not revised this section. Class I, Special Division 1 is intended to be equivalent to Class I, Zone 0, and is consistent with Informational Note No. 2 of Article 500.5(B)(3) of NFPA 70. Coast Guard regulations have long recognized that certain spaces such as cargo pump rooms and cargo tanks are more hazardous than other Class I, Division 1 locations. For these hazardous locations, we limit the types of permitted electrical installations. Use of the term “Class I, Special Division 1” simplifies the designation of these locations.

    Electrical Equipment Inspection and Maintenance Requirements

    Five comments recommended that the Coast Guard establish standards for the design, installation, inspection, and maintenance of electrical equipment in hazardous locations. Two comments suggested requiring an onboard electrical equipment register that contains information regarding electrical equipment and its inspection, maintenance, and operational history. The commenters also suggest this information could be reviewed by visiting Coast Guard marine inspectors or third-party inspection personnel and could become part of a company's quality system. We agree that competency and accurate recordkeeping are critical to safety, but this recommendation is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

    “Operated on the OCS”

    Under the NPRM, vessels and facilities new to the OCS would be subject to the NPRM, whereas vessels and facilities that had previously operated on the OCS, would not. Two comments requested that the Coast Guard more clearly define what constitutes having “operated on the OCS.” Because this final rule now applies only to vessels and facilities constructed after April 2, 2018, that engage in OCS activities, we believe no further elaboration is needed, because the phrase “operated on the OCS” is no longer used.

    BSEE-USCG MOA, OCS-8, Regarding MODUs

    Two comments requested clarification on the responsibilities of the Coast Guard and of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) for electrical equipment in hazardous locations on MODUs under the USCG/BSEE Memorandum of Agreement, OCS-8, signed June 4, 2013. While the subject is outside the scope of this rulemaking because neither agency's responsibilities with regard to regulating electrical equipment located in hazardous locations are affected by this final rule, it is relevant to understanding the regulatory requirements for electrical equipment located in hazardous locations.

    BSEE and Coast Guard have a shared responsibility for safety on the OCS. In general, the Coast Guard is responsible for the vessel or facility and all of its supporting systems while BSEE is responsible for systems related to the drilling and production of resources. Classification of hazardous locations and design of electrical systems is a vessel-wide or facility-wide task and the Coast Guard maintains a holistic view of the vessel or facility. The Coast Guard, in this rule, provides an expanded list of standards that are applicable to systems under the Coast Guard's jurisdiction as explained in BSEE-USCG MOA OCS-8. The electrical safety standards contained in BSEE's OCS regulations, 30 CFR part 250, are acceptable to the Coast Guard. Frequently, drilling and production components will be installed on vessels or facilities on a temporary or semi-temporary basis. In general, BSEE oversees these systems and if they find them acceptable, their installation is acceptable to the Coast Guard.

    Class I, Division 2 and Class I, Zone 2

    Two comments suggested that electrical equipment in Division 2 or Zone 2 locations be accepted without independent third-party certification or be accepted with ATEX certification. The Coast Guard agrees to the extent that applicable provisions of NFPA 70 and the 2009 IMO MODU Code permit. 46 CFR 111.108-3(b)(1) and (b)(2) incorporate by reference Articles 500-504 and Article 505 of the NFPA 70. Articles 501.125(B) and 505.20(C) of the NFPA 70 allow the installation of certain electrical equipment in these locations without independent identification or listing if the equipment meets specific requirements that reduce the risk of explosion. This final rule is not intended to modify these standards. 46 CFR 111.108-3(b)(3) incorporates Chapter 6 of the 2009 IMO MODU Code and requires certification under the IECEx System. The IECEx System requires independent certification for all electrical equipment in hazardous areas. This final rule is not intended to modify the IECEx System. Electrical system designers must choose an explosion protection standards regime from the list of acceptable options provided in 46 CFR 111.108-3 and comply with the standards regime they chose.

    American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and International Society of Automation (ISA) Standards

    One comment requested that the Coast Guard incorporate the latest ANSI/ISA safety standards for hazardous locations. The Coast Guard agrees and notes that 46 CFR 111.108-3(b) incorporates the ANSI/ISA series of standards incorporated in NFPA 70, as it did in the NPRM.

    Certain Required Equipment Not Meeting Zone 2 Requirements

    Two comments noted that some required equipment located in hazardous locations is not available as certified for Zone 2 areas, such as search and rescue transponders. The Coast Guard agrees with this comment, and notes that several standards included in this final rule address this situation. The objective of this final rule is to provide a selection of standards for certification of electrical equipment in hazardous locations. Electrical equipment not meeting the Class I, Zone 2 or Class I, Division 2 requirements, should be installed as far as possible from hazardous locations, or if not possible, located or installed in the least hazardous location. Standards listed in 46 CFR 111.108-3 of this final rule do address equipment such as this. Section 6.3.3 of IEC 61892-7:2007,2 which is accepted by the 2009 IMO MODU Code, refers to an assessment for energy-limited equipment and circuits that is provided in IEC 60079-15, ANSI/ISA 60079-15, ANSI/ISA-12.12.01, and UL 1604. Similarly, non-third party assessment provisions are provided in Article 501 of NFPA 70 for electrical equipment without switching mechanisms, or similar arc producing devices. These standards can be used when certain required equipment is not available as certified for Zone 2 areas.

    2 IEC 61892-7, Mobile and fixed offshore units—Electrical installations—Part 7: Hazardous areas, Edition 2.0.

    Acceptance of IECEx Certified Equipment

    One comment asked if equipment tested to the IECEx System but not yet marked as such would be acceptable. The commenter explained that equipment is sometimes delivered before the IECEx Certificate of Compliance is issued. Another comment noted that equipment can be certified under both the ATEX Directive and the IECEx System but only have ATEX labeling. Finally, a comment requested acceptance of equipment consisting of assemblies of IECEx certified components rather than requiring a certificate for the entire assembly.

    These are compliance issues that can be very simple or very complex depending on the type of equipment and will be addressed by the Marine Safety Center (MSC) or cognizant Officer-in-Charge, Marine Inspection on a case-by-case basis. When IECEx on any other Coast Guard accepted independent third party certification is unclear, documentation must be presented that demonstrates the equipment meets the applicable requirements. Any equipment or assembly of equipment must meet all the requirements of the IECEx System. It is not the Coast Guard's intent to modify the IECEx System.

    Ultra Low Sulfur (ULS) Diesel Fuels

    One comment requested that the Coast Guard consider lowering the minimum flashpoint that defines hazardous locations, because Ultra Low Sulfur (ULS) diesel fuels are being produced against a minimum flashpoint of 52° C, rather than the 60° C minimum that has served as the basis for both Coast Guard and IMO requirements to date. We are unable to make this change in the final rule because it was not proposed in the NPRM. The minimum flashpoint of 60° C exists in numerous standards and regulations including 46 CFR 111.105-29, 46 CFR 111.105-31, 46 CFR 58.01-10, numerous locations within SOLAS, and IEC 60092-502:1999. We may consider proposing a change to the minimum flashpoint in a future rulemaking. This will provide the public the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Until that occurs, the MSC can accept arrangements that provide an equivalent level of safety in accordance with 46 CFR 110.20-1.

    IECEx Certified Equipment in Class I, Division 1 and Class I, Division 2 Locations

    One commenter requested that drill floor equipment that is IECEx certified for Class I, Zone 1 or Class I, Zone 2 be permitted on drill floors classified to Class I, Division 1 or Class I, Division 2. Equipment certified using the zone classification system, regardless of whether certification was by a Coast Guard-accepted independent laboratory or IECEx ExCB, is permitted in locations that are classified using the division classification system in accordance with Article 501.5 of NFPA 70, NEC. The same commenter requested that drill floors be allowed to be classified under both systems so that both zone and division certified equipment could be used. We do not favor one classification system over the other and we are not opposed to dual classification, but we caution that great care must be taken. While both systems offer comparable levels of safety the two systems are not identical or interchangeable. Indiscriminate “mixing and matching” of systems could result in errors that result in lower levels of safety. This limits the benefit of dual classification. Article 505.7 of NFPA 70 provides details on dual classification. Any mixing of classification systems should be done in accordance with NFPA 70 to ensure that the requirements of 46 CFR subpart 111.108 are met.

    V. Incorporation by Reference

    The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in § 110.10-1 for incorporation by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the material are available from the sources listed in that section.

    VI. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or E.O.s.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under that Order. Nonetheless, we developed an analysis of the costs and benefits of the rule to ascertain its probable impacts on industry.

    A summary of the changes between the NPRM and the final rule follows:

    Table 1—Changes Between NPRM and Final Rule Subject Stage NPRM Final rule Impact Affected Population U.S. and foreign vessels and floating OCS facilities that are new to the OCS or newly built Under the final rule, only vessels and facilities constructed after April 2, 2018 will be subject to the rule Allows existing vessels and facilities as well as those currently under contract or construction to avoid potentially costly retrofit/recertification costs. Implementation Date Affected population required to comply by the effective date, which is 30 days after final rule is published Changed to 3 years after effective date of the rule Allows owners and operators to avoid recertification costs for vessels or facilities currently under contract or construction. Discussion of Applicable Regulatory Assessment Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received several comments on the published NPRM. These comments have been grouped by topic, as several comments addressed similar concerns, and are discussed in the following table.

    Table 2—NPRM Comment Topics and Responses Implementation Date Several commenters voiced their concern that the 30 day period between publication of the final rule and the effective date of the requirements was too brief and did not allow sufficient time for vessel and facility owners to come into compliance. Changing the implementation date from 30 days to 3 years after publication of the rule addresses this concern and provides owners and operators of the affected population the amount of time deemed sufficient by both the Coast Guard and commenters alike, to meet the requirements of this rule. Compliance costs for vessels currently under contract or construction Several comments addressed the concern that vessels currently under contract or construction could face recertification costs before the vessel has been completed. For example, one such comment stated, “Proposed regulations will block entry onto the OCS of over 200 MODUs, built to the 2009 MODU Code, that are currently under contracting or construction.” The Coast Guard acknowledges the potential cost associated with vessels currently under design or construction. Estimates suggest that designs and contracts are sometimes set as much as 3 years in advance. It is for this reason that we have changed the implementation date to 3 years after the publication of the rule. A 3 year delayed implementation date allows vessels currently under contract or construction to remain subject to the regulations in effect at the time that their construction began. Changing the implementation date to 3 years after the publication of the rule allows owners and operators of vessels currently under contract or construction to avert any costs associated with the requirements of this rule. Existing foreign vessels and facilities Several comments addressed existing MODUs that do not currently operate on the OCS but intend to operate on the OCS and the cost of bringing them into compliance with the regulations prescribed in the NPRM. We recognize that the costs of retrofitting and/or recertifying existing MODUs could be prohibitive depending on the individual MODU. Because of this, we revised the rule's applicability to include only those vessels and facilities that are constructed after April 2, 2018 and that operate on the OCS. Existing vessels and facilities or vessels and facilities constructed on or before April 2, 2018 will continue to be subject to the regulations and standards effective at the time of their construction. Accuracy of Recertification Cost Model and Estimates Some commenters stated that the burden to industry would likely exceed the cost published in the NPRM for existing vessels/MODUs. In addition to required equipment recertification and replacement costs, there would be a loss of revenue during necessary downtime for replacement of equipment that could equal or exceed all other costs. As noted previously, due to the burden for existing vessels or vessels currently under contract or construction, the Coast Guard modified the rule's affected population to include only those vessels and facilities that are constructed after April 2, 2018 and that engage in OCS activities. Barriers to trade One commenter suggested the proposal would impose U.S.-specific requirements that are above and beyond international norms, and would create a non-tariff barrier to trade that would restrict the availability of rigs for the U.S. market. The Coast Guard does not foresee any barriers to trade. Coast Guard used NIST's process to notify foreign governments of our proposed NPRM and no comments were received as a result of that outreach. Costs: U.S. Vessels

    We do not anticipate any costs to be borne by the U.S.-flagged vessels that will be affected by this rule. The rule requires that all U.S. vessels, excluding OSVs that are regulated under 46 CFR subchapter L, that are constructed after April 2, 2018 and engage in OCS activity, comply with the newly created subpart 111.108. U.S. flagged vessels which fall within this scope are provided with an expanded list of standards and certification options.

    Subpart 111.108 will not impose any burden on U.S. vessels due to the nature of current industry practice. Because North American certification of electrical equipment is generally to the most current edition of the published reference standards,3 we do not anticipate new equipment will be tested and certified to the standards referenced in subpart 111.105 when more current, updated editions of the standards are available.

    3 Confirmed by Principal Engineer—Global Hazardous Locations Product Safety, UL LLC., 12/26/2012.

    The logic applied to U.S. vessels, excluding OSVs as discussed above, applies to U.S. MODUs and floating OCS facilities as well. We do not anticipate any cost burden associated with this rule to be imposed on this vessel class. We believe this because the affected population are those U.S. MODUs and floating OCS facilities that are constructed after April 2, 2018. These vessels will be subject to subpart 111.108, a subpart that contains the updated standards to which new equipment will be certified. As with the vessels discussed earlier, in the absence of subpart 111.108, new equipment would be built to the most current standards as a matter of industry practice. Under this final rule, this scenario will not require any costs to the vessel owner as there is no change in the regulatory environment for U.S. MODUs and floating OCS facilities.

    Under this final rule, all U.S. MODUs, floating OCS facilities, vessels other than OSVs, and U.S. tank vessels may comply with this new subpart in lieu of §§ 111.105-1 through 111.105-15. We do not foresee any additional costs to the owners of these vessels and facilities by providing this option but if there are additional costs, there is expected to be equal or greater benefit to the owner driving the selection of this option. Currently, the regulations for electrical installations in hazardous locations are contained in subpart 111.105. This regulation will expand the available subparts to include subpart 111.108, while still allowing owners and operators the option to remain subject to existing subpart 111.105.

    Costs: Foreign Vessels

    While the modification of the affected population aids us in estimating the effects of the proposed rulemaking, it does not further refine the costs which are applied to the population. As some commenters on the NPRM document have reinforced, the estimated costs associated with the rule could vary widely. Industry costs were constructed from a variety of elements, for example the cost of certifying equipment or the opportunity cost of recertification of said equipment. With the modification of the affected population we are able to drop the opportunity cost from our analysis, which allows us to further streamline our discussion of the costs for the rulemaking. What remains is the cost associated with third party certification of equipment.

    Currently, foreign vessels are not required to utilize third party certified equipment in hazardous areas unless explicitly required by their flag state. Implementation of the final rule will require certification by a Coast Guard approved, independent laboratory which, in effect, changes the baseline for newly constructed foreign vessels. Foreign flagged vessels constructed 3 years after the implementation date seeking entrance to the OCS in pursuit of OCS activities will be required to utilize third party certified equipment where previously this was not explicitly required. Our analysis of this baseline change is clouded by the aggregate nature of the cost of certification. When an entity purchases equipment for use in a hazardous location on a vessel, the marginal cost of the certification element of the purchase price is not itemized for the purchaser. The certification cost is present in the purchase price as a value added component of the total price of the equipment. As such, we are not able to explicitly determine the marginal cost difference between equipment certified by a third party and those without third party certification. Additionally, the list of equipment present in these locations, and required to be third party certified, is diverse. For example, one equipment list obtained by the Coast Guard contained equipment which ranged in complexity from a fluorescent light to elements of the tank temperature monitoring system.

    While the cost estimation is obtuse, it is not insurmountable. We have several elements which should allow us to construct a range for the final rule's associated costs. On the high end of the range, we have the cost to replace all of the electrical installations in a representative vessel. While not specifically applicable to a newly built vessel, it is an appropriate estimate of the costs associated with replacement of electrical installations in hazardous areas. This estimate contains the costs associated with replacement of both the equipment and the certification on a U.S. flagged vessel, which are already subject to the certification requirements in this final rule.

    The $500,000 cost quote 4 for replacement of the equipment appropriate for a hazardous location on a vessel is useful as a cost ceiling. The replacement cost for this equipment, contains that which is associated with the third party certification, in addition to the price of the equipment itself. This functions well as a price ceiling as we can be sure that the marginal cost of third party certification will fall below this point estimate, as it is not likely to be above the full cost of the equipment with its associated certification.

    4 Regulatory Advisor—ExxonMobil, 8/14/2012.

    The cost floor is a function of costs potentially accrued to a hypothetical vessel to be built in the future. In some cases these vessels would be built to the certification specifications contained in this final rule anyway, in which case they would accrue no additional costs from this rule. However, due to the probable greater cost of third-party-certified equipment, we can assume that, without this rulemaking, some equipment would be installed without third party certification. Table 3 presents the range.

    Table 3—Cost Range Low-cost
  • floor
  • Average High-cost
  • ceiling
  • $0 $250,000 $500,000
    Affected Population

    The Coast Guard-maintained MISLE database, contains records of all applicable vessels operating on the OCS in pursuit of OCS activities. Historic data extracted from this database is presented below in Table 4.

    Table 4—MISLE Historic Data Build year Frequency 2004 0 2005 1 2006 0 2007 0 2008 2 2009 4 2010 3 2011 2 2012 2 2013 3 Total 17 Average * 2 * Rounded.

    Over the past 10 years, 17 foreign vessels have been built which would fall under this rule's application. The database was filtered to include foreign vessels, those vessel classes which would potentially be on the OCS in pursuit of OCS activities, and have build years within the past decade. Evaluation of this data found that on average, 2 foreign vessels are built per year which could seek entrance to the US OCS in pursuit of OCS activities.

    Therefore, the range of costs associated with this rulemaking will fall between $0 (2 Vessels * $0) and $1,000,000 (2 vessels * $500,000) per year with an average per year cost of $500,000 (2 vessels * $250,000).

    Cost estimate Low-cost
  • floor
  • Average High-cost
  • ceiling
  • $0 $500,000 $1,000,000
    NPRM vs Final Rule

    Burden estimates in the NPRM were $800,000 per year. With the changes that the final rule makes to the affected population, the yearly costs have been reduced, by an estimation that is upwards of 37%.

    ER31MR15.002 Benefits

    We are unable to monetize benefits. We can find no casualties that would have been prevented by these regulations. However, third-party testing and certification for critical equipment, such as electrical equipment intended for use in hazardous locations, addresses a potentially catastrophic hazard consisting of an explosive gas or vapor combined with an electrical ignition source, and is generally understood by industry as an appropriate measure that enhances safety and protects life, the environment, and property.

    Alternatives

    We considered five alternatives when evaluating the effects of this final rule. The first, abstaining from action, was rejected because it allows a regulatory imbalance and a potential safety gap to exist between foreign vessels and U.S. vessels operating on the OCS.

    The second alternative we considered was to require both U.S. and foreign vessels and facilities to adhere to the existing international standards. This alternative was deemed insufficient because compliance with international standards, such as the 2009 IMO Code, is subject to the interpretation of the applicable flag administration. An example of an undesired consequence of this alternative would be the acceptance of ATEX certified equipment. The Coast Guard, however, will not accept ATEX certifications because evidence of full testing to the applicable harmonized 60079 series of standards by an independent third-party laboratory is not guaranteed. Consistent with preexisting Coast Guard practices, third-party testing and certification for critical equipment is generally required.

    The third alternative we considered was to require foreign vessels and floating facilities to meet current U.S. standards. This alternative was not selected because we believe that requiring compliance with U.S. standards is unnecessary when there are comparable international standards acceptable to the Coast Guard. Because these latest editions of internationally recognized standards for explosion protection offer owners and operators greater flexibility, while also avoiding the costs of coastal state-specific requirements, we are expanding the list of international explosion protection standards deemed acceptable.

    The fourth alternative, implementing the regulations in this final rule, puts in place a regulatory regime that will allow for both the U.S., as the coastal state, and industry to be confident in the certification and assessment of electrical equipment intended for use in hazardous locations. This will be achieved through the use of the most current, internationally recognized standards for explosion protection and independent third-party certification. The regulations in this final rule expand the list of national and international explosion protection standards deemed acceptable for U.S. operators.

    A fifth and final alternative is that which was presented to the public in the NPRM. This alternative included the application of the NPRM regulations to existing vessels before those vessels engaged in OCS activities for the first time. This alternative would have included foreign vessels currently under contract or construction. We determined that this alternative would force an undue burden on the industry due primarily to the cost effects. Industry's comments to the docket suggest that the compliance cost per vessel could be cost prohibitive. With current estimates of 219 foreign MODUs in some stage of construction, the cost of this alternative could have potentially outpaced its benefits.

    B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

    We do not anticipate any effect on small entities. As noted in the previous discussion, there is no anticipated cost burden placed on U.S. entities by this rule and, as such, we do not anticipate any effect on small entities that would be addressed by this section. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

    D. Collection of Information

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

    E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis is explained below.

    It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories reserved for exclusive regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled that all of the categories for inspected vessels covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels), as well as the reporting of casualties and any other category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, are within fields foreclosed from regulation by the States. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in the consolidated cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000).) This final rule regulates electrical equipment standards on inspected vessels. As such, States may not regulate within this category. Therefore, the rule is consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption requirements in Executive Order 13132.

    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    G. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630 (“Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights”).

    H. Civil Justice Reform

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

    I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045 (“Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks”). This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

    J. Indian Tribal Governments

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

    K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

    L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

    This rule uses the following voluntary consensus standards:

    • ANSI/ISA-12.12.01-2012—Nonincendive Electrical Equipment for Use in Class I and II, Division 2 and Class III, Divisions 1 and 2 Hazardous (Classified) Locations, approved 9 July 2012 (“ANSI/ISA 12.12.01”) • ANSI/ISA-60079-18—explosive atmospheres—Part 18: Equipment protection by encapsulation “m”, Third Edition, approved 14 September 2012 (“ANSI/ISA 60079-18 (2012)”) • UL 674—Standard for Safety: Electric Motors and Generators for Use in Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Fifth Edition, dated May 31, 2011 (with revisions through July 19, 2013) (“ANSI/UL 674 (2013)”) • UL 823—Electric Heaters for Use in Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Ninth Edition including revisions through November 15, 2007 (dated October 20, 2006) (“ANSI/UL 823”) • UL 844—Electric Lighting Fixtures for Use in Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Thirteenth Edition, dated June 29, 2012 (“ANSI/UL 844 (2012)”) • UL 913—Standard for Safety: Intrinsically Safe Apparatus and Associated Apparatus for use in Class I, II and III, Division 1, Hazardous Locations, Seventh Edition, Dated July 31, 2006 (including revisions through June 3, 2010) (“ANSI/UL 913”) • UL 1203—Explosion-proof and Dust-ignition Proof Electrical Equipment for use in Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Fourth Edition, Dated September 15, 2006 (including revisions through October 28, 2009) (“ANSI/UL 1203”) • UL 2225—Standard for Safety: Cables and Cable-Fittings for use in Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Third Edition, dated February 25, 2011 (“ANSI/UL 2225 (2011)”) • ASTM F2876-10—Standard Practice for Thermal Rating and Installation of Internal Combustion Engine Packages for use in Hazardous Locations in Marine Applications, approved November 1, 2010 (“ASTM F2876-10”) • CSA C22.2 No. 30-M1986—Explosion-Proof Enclosures for Use in Class I Hazardous Locations, Reaffirmed 2007 (“CSA C22.2 No. 30-M1986”) • CSA C22.2 No. 213-M1987—Non-incendive Electrical Equipment for Use in Class I, Division 2 Hazardous Locations, Reaffirmed 2008 (“CSA C22.2 No. 213-M1987”) • CAN/CSA-C22.2 No. 0-M91—General Requirements—Canadian Electrical Code, Part II, Reaffirmed 2006 (“CSA C22.2 No. 0-M91”) • CAN/CSA-C22.2 No. 157-92—Intrinsically Safe and Non-incendive Equipment for Use in Hazardous Locations, Reaffirmed 2006 (“CSA C22.2 No. 157-92”) • FM Approvals Class Number 3600—Approval Standard for Electric Equipment for use in Hazardous (Classified) Locations General Requirements, November 1998 (“FM Approvals Class Number 3600”) • FM Approvals Class Number 3610—Approval Standard for Intrinsically Safe Apparatus and Associated Apparatus for Use in Class I, II, and III, Division 1, Hazardous (Classified) Locations, January 2010 (“FM Approvals Class Number 3610”) • FM Approvals Class Number 3611—Approval Standard for Nonincendive Electrical Equipment for Use in Class I and II, Division 2, and Class III, Divisions 1 and 2, Hazardous (Classified) Locations, December 2004 (“FM Approvals Class Number 3611”) • FM Approvals Class Number 3615—Approval Standard for Explosionproof Electrical Equipment General Requirements, August 2006 (“FM Approvals Class Number 3615”) • FM Approvals Class Number 3620—Approval Standard for Purged and Pressurized Electrical Equipment for Hazardous (Classified) Locations, August 2000 (“FM Approvals Class Number 3620”) • IEC 60079-1:2007—Explosive atmospheres—Part 1: Equipment protection by flameproof enclosures “d”, Sixth edition, 2007-04 • IEC 60079-2:2007—Explosive atmospheres—Part 2: Equipment protection by pressurized enclosures “p”, Fifth edition, 2007-02 • IEC 60079-5:2007—Explosive atmospheres—Part 5: Equipment protection by powder filling “q”, Third edition, 2007-03 • IEC 60079-6:2007—Explosive atmospheres—Part 6: Equipment protection by oil immersion “o”, Third edition, 2007-03 • IEC 60079-7:2006—Explosive atmospheres—Part 7: Equipment protection by increased safety “e”, Fourth edition, 2006-07 • IEC 60079-11:2011—Explosive atmospheres—Part 11: Equipment protection by intrinsic safety “i”, Edition 6.0, 2011-06 • IEC 60079-13:2010—Explosive atmospheres—Part 13: Equipment protection by pressurized room “p”, Edition 1.0, 2010-10 • IEC 60079-15:2010—Explosive atmospheres—Part 15: Equipment protection by type of protection “n”, Edition 4.0, 2010-01 • IEC 60079-18:2009—Explosive atmospheres—Part 18: Equipment protection by encapsulation “m”, Edition 3.0, 2009-05 • IEC 60079-25:2010—Explosive atmospheres—Part 25: Intrinsically safe electrical systems, Edition 2.0, 2010-02 • IEC 60092-502:1999—Electrical installations in ships—Part 502: Tankers—Special features, Fifth edition, 1999-02 • IEC 61892-7:2007—Mobile and fixed offshore units—Electrical installations—Part 7: Hazardous areas, Edition 2.0, 2007-11 • NFPA 70—National Electrical Code, 2011 Edition (“NFPA 70”) • NFPA 496—Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, 2013 Edition (“NFPA 496 (2013)”) • UL 1604 -Electrical Equipment for use in Class I and II, Division 2 and Class III Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Third Edition, Dated April 28, 1994 (including revisions through February 5, 2004) (“UL 1604”)

    The sections that reference these standards and the locations where these standards are available are listed in 46 CFR 110.10-1.

    This rule also uses technical standards other than voluntary consensus standards.

    • IMO Resolution A.1023(26), Code for the Construction and Equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, 2009, 19 January 2010 (“2009 IMO MODU Code”)

    The section that references this standard and the locations where this standard is available are listed in 46 CFR 110.10-1.

    M. Environment

    We have analyzed this final rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This final rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraphs (34)(a), (d) and (e) of the Instruction and under section 6(a) of the “Appendix to National Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures for Categorical Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency Policy” (67 FR 48244, July 23, 2002).” This final rule involves regulations which are editorial and concern inspection and equipping of vessels and regulations concerning vessel operation safety standards. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 140

    Continental shelf, Investigations, Marine safety, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    33 CFR Part 143

    Continental shelf, Marine safety, Occupational safety and health, Vessels.

    46 CFR Part 110

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Incorporation by reference.

    46 CFR Part 111

    Vessels.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts 140 and 143 and 46 CFR parts 110 and 111 as follows:

    Title 33—Navigation and Navigable Waters CHAPTER I—COAST GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SUBCHAPTER N—OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF ACTIVITIES PART 140—GENERAL 1. The authority citation for part 140 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    43 U.S.C. 1333, 1348, 1350, 1356; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Amend § 140.10 by adding a definition for “Constructed” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    § 140.10 Defintions.

    Constructed means the date—

    (1) The vessel's keel was laid; or

    (2) Construction identifiable with the vessel or facility began and assembly of that vessel or facility commenced comprising of 50 metric tons or at least 1 percent of the estimated mass of all structural material, whichever is less.

    PART 143—DESIGN AND EQUIPMENT 3. The authority citation for part 143 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    43 U.S.C. 1333(d)(1), 1348(c), 1356; 49 CFR 1.46; section 143.210 is also issued under 14 U.S.C. 664 and 31 U.S.C. 9701.

    4. Amend § 143.120 by adding paragraphs (d) to read as follows:
    § 143.120 Floating OCS facilities.

    (d) Each floating OCS facility that is constructed after April 2, 2018 must comply with the requirements of 46 CFR subpart 111.108 prior to engaging in OCS activities.

    5. Add § 143.208 to read as follows:
    § 143.208 Hazardous location requirements on foreign MODUs.

    Each mobile offshore drilling unit that is documented under the laws of a foreign nation and is constructed after April 2, 2018 must comply with the requirements of 46 CFR subpart 111.108 prior to engaging in OCS activities.

    6. Add § 143.302 to read as follows:
    § 143.302 Hazardous location requirements on foreign vessels engaged in OCS activities.

    Each vessel that is documented under the laws of a foreign nation and is constructed after April 2, 2018 must comply with the requirements of 46 CFR subpart 111.108 prior to engaging in OCS activities.

    Title 46—Shipping CHAPTER I—COAST GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SUBCHAPTER J—ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING PART 110—GENERAL PROVISIONS 7. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1509; 43 U.S.C 1333; 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3307, 3703; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; § 110.01-2 also issued under 44 U.S.C. 3507. Sections 110.15-1 and 110.25-1 also issued under sec. 617, Pub. L. 111-281, 124 Stat. 2905.

    8. Revise § 110.10-1 to read as follows:
    § 110.10-1 Incorporation by reference.

    (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subchapter with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the Coast Guard must publish notice of change in the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. The word “should,” when used in material incorporated by reference, is to be construed the same as the words “must” or “shall” for the purposes of this subchapter. All approved material is available for inspection at the U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Design and Engineering Standards (CG-ENG), 2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave. SE., Stop 7418, Washington, DC 20593-7418, and is available from the sources listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    (b) American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), ABS Plaza, 16855 Northchase Drive, Houston, TX 77060, 281-877-5800, http://www.eagle.org.

    (1) Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels, Part 4 Vessel Systems and Machinery, 2003 (“ABS Steel Vessel Rules”), IBR approved for §§ 110.15-1, 111.01-9, 111.12-3, 111.12-5, 111.12-7, 111.33-11, 111.35-1, 111.70-1, 111.105-31, 111.105-39, 111.105-40, and 113.05-7 of this chapter.

    (2) Rules for Building and Classing Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, Part 4 Machinery and Systems, 2001 (“ABS MODU Rules”), IBR approved for §§ 111.12-1, 111.12-3, 111.12-5, 111.12-7, 111.33-11, 111.35-1, and 111.70-1 of this chapter.

    (c) American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036, 212-642-4900, http://www.ansi.org/.

    (1) ANSI/IEEE C37.12-1991—American National Standard for AC High-Voltage Circuit Breakers Rated on a Symmetrical Current Basis-Specifications Guide, 1991 (“ANSI/IEEE C37.12”), IBR approved for § 111.54-1 of this chapter.

    (2) ANSI/IEEE C37.27-1987 (IEEE Std 331)—Application Guide for Low-Voltage AC Nonintegrally Fused Power Circuitbreakers (Using Separately Mounted Current-Limiting Fuses), 1987 (“ANSI/IEEE C37.27”), IBR approved for § 111.54-1 of this chapter.

    (3) ANSI/ISA 12.12.01-2012—Nonincendive Electrical Equipment for Use in Class I and II, Division 2 and Class II, Divisions 1 and 2 Hazardous (Classified) Locations, approved 9 July 2012 (“ANSI/ISA 12.12.01”), IBR approved for § 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (4) ANSI/ISA-60079-18—Electrical Apparatus for Use in Class I, Zone 1 Hazardous (Classified) Locations: Type of Protection—Encapsulation “m”, approved July 31, 2009 (“ANSI/ISA 60079-18”), IBR approved for § 111.106-3(d) of this chapter.

    (5) ANSI/ISA-60079-18—Explosive atmospheres—Part 18: Equipment protection by encapsulation “m”, Third Edition, approved 14 September, 2012 (“ANSI/ISA 60079-18 (2012)”), IBR approved for § 111.108-3(e) of this chapter.

    (d) American Petroleum Institute (API), Order Desk, 1220 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20005-4070, 202-682-8000, http://www.api.org.

    (1) API RP 500—Recommended Practice for Classification of Locations for Electrical Installations at Petroleum Facilities Classified as Class I, Division 1 and Division 2, Second Edition, November 1997, reaffirmed in 2002 (“API RP 500”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-7(a) and 111.106-13(b) of this chapter.

    (2) API RP 505—Recommended Practice for Classification of Locations for Electrical Installations at Petroleum Facilities Classified as Class I, Zone 0, Zone 1, and Zone 2, First Edition, approved January 7, 1998 (dated November 1997), reaffirmed 2002 (“API RP 505”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-7(a) and 111.106-13(b) of this chapter.

    (e) ASME, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990, 800-843-2763, http://www.asme.org.

    (1) ASME A17.1-2000 Part 2 Electric Elevators, 2000 (“ASME A17.1”), IBR approved for § 111.91-1 of this chapter.

    (2) [Reserved]

    (f) ASTM International (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, 610-832-9500, http://www.astm.org.

    (1) ASTM B 117-97, Standard Practice for Operating Salt Spray (Fog) Apparatus, (“ASTM B 117”), IBR approved for § 110.15-1 of this chapter.

    (2) ASTM F2876-10—Standard Practice for Thermal Rating and Installation of Internal Combustion Engine Packages for use in Hazardous Locations in Marine Applications, approved November 1, 2010 (“ASTM F2876-10”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(h) and 111.108-3(g) of this chapter.

    (g) Canadian Standards Association (CSA), 5060 Spectrum Way, Suite 100, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada, 800-463-6727, http://www.csa.ca/.

    (1) CSA C22.2 No. 30-M1986—Explosion-Proof Enclosures for Use in Class I Hazardous Locations, Reaffirmed 2007 (“CSA C22.2 No. 30-M1986”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (2) CSA C22.2 No. 213-M1987—Non-incendive Electrical Equipment for Use in Class I, Division 2 Hazardous Locations, Reaffirmed 2008 (“CSA C22.2 No. 213-M1987”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (3) CAN/CSA-C22.2 No. 0-M91—General Requirements—Canadian Electrical Code, Part II, Reaffirmed 2006 (“CSA C22.2 No. 0-M91”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (4) CAN/CSA-C22.2 No. 157-92—Intrinsically Safe and Non-incendive Equipment for Use in Hazardous Locations, Reaffirmed 2006 (“CSA C22.2 No. 157-92”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (h) DLA Document Services, Department of Defense, Single Stock Point, 700 Robbins Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19111, 215-697-6396, http://www.assistdocs.com.

    (1) MIL-C-24640A—Military Specification Cables, Light Weight, Electric, Low Smoke, for Shipboard Use, General Specification for (1995) Supplement 1, June 26, 1995 (“NPFC MIL-C-24640A”), IBR approved for §§ 111.60-1 and 111.60-3 of this chapter.

    (2) MIL-C-24643A—Military Specification Cables and Cords, Electric, Low Smoke, for Shipboard Use, General Specification for (1996), Amendment 2, March 13, 1996 (“MIL-C-24643A”), IBR approved for §§ 111.60-1 and 111.60-3 of this chapter.

    (3) MIL-DTL-24640C with Supplement 1—Detail Specification Cables, Lightweight, Low Smoke, Electric, for Shipboard Use, General Specification for, November 18, 2011 (“MIL-DTL-24640C”), IBR approved for § 111.106-5(a) of this chapter.

    (4) MIL-DTL-24643C with Supplement 1A—Detail Specification Cables, Electric, Low Smoke Halogen-Free, for Shipboard Use, General Specification for, December 13, 2011 (dated October 1, 2009) (“MIL-DTL-24643C”), IBR approved for § 111.106-5(a) of this chapter.

    (5) MIL-W-76D—Military Specification Wire and Cable, Hook-Up, Electrical, Insulated, General Specification for (2003) Amendment 1-2003, February 6, 2003 (“NPFC MIL-W-76D”), IBR approved for § 111.60-11 of this chapter.

    (i) FM Approvals, P.O. Box 9102, Norwood, MA 02062, 781-440-8000, http://www.fmglobal.com.

    (1) Class Number 3600—Approval Standard for Electric Equipment for use in Hazardous (Classified) Locations General Requirements, November 1998 (“FM Approvals Class Number 3600”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (2) Class Number 3610—Approval Standard for Intrinsically Safe Apparatus and Associated Apparatus for Use in Class I, II, and III, Division 1, Hazardous (Classified) Locations, January 2010 (“FM Approvals Class Number 3610”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (3) Class Number 3611—Approval Standard for Nonincendive Electrical Equipment for Use in Class I and II, Division 2, and Class III, Divisions 1 and 2, Hazardous (Classified) Locations, December 2004 (“FM Approvals Class Number 3611”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (4) Class Number 3615—Approval Standard for Explosionproof Electrical Equipment General Requirements, August 2006 (“FM Approvals Class Number 3615”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (5) Class Number 3620—Approval Standard for Purged and Pressurized Electrical Equipment for Hazardous (Classified) Locations, August 2000 (“FM Approvals Class Number 3620”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (j) Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), IEEE Service Center, 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854, 732-981-0060, http://www.ieee.org/.

    (1) IEEE Std C37.04-1999—IEEE Standard Rating Structure for AC High-Voltage Circuit Breakers, 1999 (“IEEE C37.04”), IBR approved for § 111.54-1 of this chapter.

    (2) IEEE Std C37.010-1999—IEEE Application Guide for AC High-Voltage Circuit Breakers Rated on a Symmetrical Current Basis, 1999 (“IEEE C37.010”), IBR approved for § 111.54-1 of this chapter.

    (3) IEEE Std C37.13-1990—IEEE Standard for Low-Voltage AC Power Circuit Breakers Used in Enclosures, October 22, 1990 (“IEEE C37.13”), IBR approved for § 111.54-1 of this chapter.

    (4) IEEE Std C37.14-2002—IEEE Standard for Low-Voltage DC Power Circuit Breakers Used in Enclosures, April 25, 2003 (“IEEE C37.14”), IBR approved for § 111.54-1 of this chapter.

    (5) IEEE Std 45-1998—IEEE Recommended Practice for Electric Installations on Shipboard, October 19, 1998 (“IEEE 45-1998”), IBR approved for §§ 111.30-19, 111.105-3, 111.105-31, and 111.105-41 of this chapter.

    (6) IEEE Std 45-2002—IEEE Recommended Practice for Electrical Installations On Shipboard, October 11, 2002 (“IEEE 45-2002”), IBR approved for §§ 111.05-7, 111.15-2, 111.30-1, 111.30-5, 111.33-3, 111.33-5, 111.40-1, 111.60-1, 111.60-3, 111.60-5, 111.60-11, 111.60-13, 111.60-19, 111.60-21, 111.60-23, 111.75-5, and 113.65-5 of this chapter.

    (7) IEEE 100—The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Edition, 2000 (“IEEE 100”), IBR approved for § 110.15-1.

    (8) IEEE Std 1202-1991—IEEE Standard for Flame Testing of Cables for Use in Cable Tray in Industrial and Commercial Occupancies, 1991 (“IEEE 1202”), IBR approved for §§ 111.60-6 and 111.107-1 of this chapter.

    (9) IEEE Std 1580-2001—IEEE Recommended Practice for Marine Cable for Use on Shipboard and Fixed or Floating Platforms, December 17, 2001 (“IEEE 1580”), IBR approved for §§ 111.60-1, 111.60-2, 111.60-3 and 111.106-5(a) of this chapter.

    (k) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 3 Rue de Varembe, Geneva, Switzerland, +41 22 919 02 11, http://www.iec.ch/.

    (1) IEC 60068-2-52—Environmental Testing Part 2: Tests—Test Kb: Salt Mist, Cyclic (Sodium Chloride Solution), Second Edition, 1996 (“IEC 68-2-52”), IBR approved for § 110.15-1.

    (2) IEC 60079-0—Electrical apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres—Part 0: General Requirements, Edition 3.1, 2000 (“IEC 60079-0”), IBR approved for §§ 111.105-1, 111.105-3, 111.105-5, 111.105-7, and 111.105-17 of this chapter.

    (3) IEC 60079-1—Electrical Apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres—Part 1: Flameproof Enclosures “d” including corr.1, Fourth Edition, June 2001 (“IEC 60079-1”), IBR approved for §§ 111.105-1, 111.105-3, 111.105-5, 111.105-7, 111.105-9, and 111.105-17 of this chapter.

    (4) IEC 60079-1:2007—Explosive atmospheres—Part 1: Equipment protection by flameproof enclosures “d”, Sixth edition, 2007-04, IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (5) IEC 60079-2 Electrical Apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres—Part 2: Pressurized Enclosures “p”, Fourth Edition, 2001 (“IEC 60079-2”), IBR approved for §§ 111.105-1, 111.105-3, 111.105-5, 111.105-7, and 111.105-17 of this chapter.

    (6) IEC 60079-2:2007—Explosive atmospheres—Part 2: Equipment protection by pressurized enclosures “p”, Fifth edition, 2007-02, IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (7) IEC 60079-5—Electrical Apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres—Part 5: Powder Filling “q”, Second Edition, 1997 (“IEC 60079-5”), IBR approved for §§ 111.105-1, 111.105-3, 111.105-5, 111.105-7, 111.105-15, and 111.105-17 of this chapter.

    (8) IEC 60079-5:2007—Explosive atmospheres—Part 5: Equipment protection by powder filling “q”, Third edition, 2007-03, IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (9) IEC 60079-6—Electrical Apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres—Part 6: Oil Immersion “o”, Second Edition, 1995 (“IEC 60079-6”), IBR approved for §§ 111.105-1, 111.105-3, 111.105-5, 111.105-7, 111.105-15, and 111.105-17 of this chapter.

    (10) IEC 60079-6:2007—Explosive atmospheres—Part 6: Equipment protection by oil immersion “o”, Third edition, 2007-03, IBR approved for § 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (11) IEC 60079-7—Electrical Apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres—Part 7: Increased Safety “e”, Third Edition, 2001 (“IEC 60079-7”), IBR approved for §§ 111.105-1, 111.105-3, 111.105-5, 111.105-7, 111.105-15, and 111.105-17 of this chapter.

    (12) IEC 60079-7:2006—Explosive atmospheres—Part 7: Equipment protection by increased safety “e”, Fourth edition, 2006-07, IBR approved for § 111.106-3(b) of this chapter.

    (13) IEC 60079-11—Electrical Apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres—Part 11: Intrinsic Safety “i”, Fourth Edition, 1999 (“IEC 60079-11”), IBR approved for §§ 111.105-1, 111.105-3, 111.105-5, 111.105-7, 111.105-11, and 111.105-17 of this chapter.

    (14) IEC 60079-11:2006—Explosive atmospheres—Part 11: Equipment protection by intrinsic safety “i”, Fifth edition, 2006-07, IBR approved for § 111.106-3(b) of this chapter.

    (15) IEC 60079-11:2011—Explosive atmospheres—Part 11: Equipment protection by intrinsic safety “i”, Edition 6.0, 2011-06, IBR approved for § 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (16) IEC 60079-13:2010—Explosive atmospheres—Part 13: Equipment protection by pressurized room “p”, Edition 1.0, 2010-10, IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (17) IEC 60079-15—Electrical Apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres—Part 15: Type of Protection “n”, Second Edition, 2001 (“IEC 60079-15”), IBR approved for §§ 111.105-1, 111.105-3, 111.105-5, 111.105-7, 111.105-15, and 111.105-17 of this chapter.

    (18) IEC 60079-15:2010—Explosive atmospheres—Part 15: Equipment protection by type of protection “n”, Edition 4.0, 2010-01, IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (19) IEC 60079-18—Electrical Apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres—Part 18: Encapsulation “m”, First Edition, 1992 (“IEC 60079-18”), IBR approved for §§ 111.105-1, 111.105-3, 111.105-5, 111.105-7, 111.105-15, and 111.105-17 of this chapter.

    (20) IEC 60079-18:2009—Explosive atmospheres—Part 18: Equipment protection by encapsulation “m”, Edition 3.0, 2009-05, IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b), 111.106-3(d), and 111.108-3(b) and (e) of this chapter.

    (21) IEC 60079-25:2010—Explosive atmospheres—Part 25: Intrinsically safe electrical systems, Edition 2.0, 2010-02, IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (22) IEC 60092-101—Electrical Installation in Ships, Part 101: Definitions and General Requirements, Edition 4.1, 2002 (“IEC 60092-101”), IBR approved for §§ 110.15-1 and 111.81-1 of this chapter.

    (23) IEC 60092-201—Electrical Installation in Ships, Part 201: System Design-General, Fourth Edition, 1994 (“IEC 60092-201”), IBR approved for §§ 111.70-3 and 111.81-1 of this chapter.

    (24) IEC 60092-202—Amendment 1 Electrical Installation in Ships, Part 202: System Design-Protection, 1996 (“IEC 60092-202”), IBR approved for §§ 111.12-7, 111.50-3, 111.53-1, and 111.54-1 of this chapter.

    (25) IEC 60092-301—Amendment 2 Electrical Installation in Ships, Part 301: Equipment-Generators and Motors, 1995 (“IEC 60092-301”), IBR approved for §§ 111.12-7, 111.25-5, and 111.70-1 of this chapter.

    (26) IEC 60092-302—Electrical Installation in Ships, Part 302: Low-Voltage Switchgear and Control Gear Assemblies, Fourth Edition, 1997 (“IEC 60092-302”), IBR approved for §§ 111.30-1, 111.30-5, and 111.30-19 of this chapter.

    (27) IEC 60092-303—Electrical Installation in Ships, Part 303: Equipment-Transformers for Power and Lighting, Third Edition, 1980 (“IEC 60092-303”), IBR approved for § 111.20-15 of this chapter.

    (28) IEC 60092-304—Amendment 1 Electrical Installation in Ships, Part 304: Equipment—Semiconductor Convertors, 1995 (“IEC 60092-304”), IBR approved for §§ 111.33-3 and 111.33-5 of this chapter.

    (29) IEC 60092-306—Electrical Installation in Ships, Part 306: Equipment—Luminaries and accessories, Third Edition, 1980 (“IEC 60092-306”), IBR approved for §§ 111.75-20 and 111.81-1 of this chapter.

    (30) IEC 60092-350:2008—Electrical installations in ships—Part 350: General construction and test methods of power, control and instrumentation cables for shipboard and offshore applications, Edition 3.0, 2008-02, IBR approved for § 111.106-5(a) of this chapter.

    (31) IEC 60092-352—Electrical Installation in Ships—Choice and Installation of Cables for Low-Voltage Power Systems, Second Edition, 1997 (“IEC 60092-352”), IBR approved for §§ 111.60-3, 111.60-5, and 111.81-1 of this chapter.

    (32) IEC 60092-353—Electrical Installations in Ships—Part 353: Single and Multicore Non-Radial Field Power Cables with Extruded Solid Insulation for Rated Voltages 1kV and 3kV, Second Edition, 1995 (“IEC 60092-353”), IBR approved for §§ 111.60-1, 111.60-3, and 111.60-5 of this chapter.

    (33) IEC 60092-353:2011—Electrical installations in ships—Part 353: Power cables for rated voltages 1 kV and 3 kV, Edition 3.0, 2011-08, IBR approved for § 111.106-5(a) of this chapter.

    (34) IEC 60092-401—Electrical Installations in Ships, Part 401: Installation and Test of completed Installation with amendment 1 (1987) and amendment 2 (1997), Third Edition, 1980 (“IEC 60092-401”), IBR approved for §§ 111.05-9 and 111.81-1 of this chapter.

    (35) IEC 60092-502—Electrical installations in ships—Part 502: Tankers—Special features, Fifth edition, 1999-02 (“IEC 60092-502”), IBR approved for §§ 111.81-1, 111.105-31, 111.106-3(b), 111.106-5(c), 111.106-15(a), and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (36) IEC 60092-503—Electrical installations in ships, Part 503: Special features: A.C. supply systems with voltages in the range of above 1kV up to and including 11kV, First Edition, 1975 (“IEC 60092-503”), IBR approved for § 111.30-5 of this chapter.

    (37) IEC 60331-11—Tests for electric cables under fire conditions—Circuit integrity—Part 11: Apparatus—Fire alone at a flame temperature of at least 750 °C, First Edition, 1999 (“IEC 60331-11”), IBR approved for § 113.30-25 of this chapter.

    (38) IEC 60331-21—Tests for Electric Cables Under Fire Conditions—Circuit Integrity—Part 21: Procedures and Requirements—Cables of Rated Voltage up to and Including 0.6/1.0kV, First Edition, 1999 (“IEC 60331-21”), IBR approved for § 113.30-25 of this chapter.

    (39) IEC 60332-1—Tests on Electric Cables Under Fire Conditions, Part 1: Test on a Single Vertical Insulated Wire or Cable, Third Edition, 1993 (“IEC 60332-1”), IBR approved for § 111.30-19 of this chapter.

    (40) IEC 60332-3-22—Tests on Electric Cables Under Fire Conditions—Part 3-22: Test for Vertical Flame Spread of Vertically-Mounted Bunched Wires or Cables—Category A, First Edition, 2000 (“IEC 60332-3-22”), IBR approved for §§ 111.60-1, 111.60-2, 111.60-6, and 111.107-1 of this chapter.

    (41) IEC 60529—Degrees of Protection Provided by Enclosures (IP Code), Edition 2.1, 2001 (“IEC 60529”), IBR approved for §§ 110.15-1, 111.01-9, 113.10-7, 113.20-3, 113.25-11, 113.30-25, 113.37-10, 113.40-10, and 113.50-5 of this chapter.

    (42) IEC 60533—Electrical and Electronic Installations in Ships—Electromagnetic Compatibility, Second Edition, 1999 (“IEC 60533”), IBR approved for § 113.05-7 of this chapter.

    (43) IEC 60947-2—Low-Voltage Switchgear and Controlgear Part 2: Circuit-Breakers, Third Edition, 2003 (“IEC 60947-2”), IBR approved for § 111.54-1 of this chapter.

    (44) IEC 61363-1—Electrical Installations of Ships and Mobile and Fixed Offshore Units—Part 1: Procedures for Calculating Short-Circuit Currents in Three-Phase a.c., First Edition, 1998 (“IEC 61363-1”), IBR approved for § 111.52-5 of this chapter.

    (45) IEC 61892-7:2007—Mobile and fixed offshore units—Electrical installations—Part 7: Hazardous areas, Edition 2.0, 2007-11, IBR approved for § 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (46) IEC 62271-100—High-voltage switchgear and controlgear—part 100: High-voltage alternating current circuitbreakers, Edition 1.1, 2003 (“IEC 62271-100”), IBR approved for § 111.54-1 of this chapter.

    (l) International Maritime Organization (IMO Publications Section), 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, +44 (0) 20 7735 7611, http://www.imo.org.

    (1) International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), Consolidated Text of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, and its Protocol of 1988: Article, Annexes and Certificates. (Incorporating all Amendments in Effect from January 2001), 2001 (“IMO SOLAS 74”), IBR approved for §§ 111.99-5, 111.105-31, 112.15-1, and 113.25-6 of this chapter.

    (2) IMO Resolution A.1023(26)—Code for the Construction and Equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, 2009, 18 January 2010 (“2009 IMO MODU Code”), IBR approved for § 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (m) International Society of Automation (ISA), 67 T.W. Alexander Drive, PO Box 12277, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 919-549-8411, http://www.isa.org/.

    (1) RP 12.6—Wiring Practices for Hazardous (Classified) Locations Instrumentation Part I: Intrinsic Safety, 1995 (“ISA RP 12.6”), IBR approved for § 111.105-11 of this chapter.

    (2) [Reserved]

    (n) Lloyd's Register, 71 Fenchurch Street, London EC3M 4BS, UK, +44-0-20-7709-9166, http://www.lr.org/.

    (1) Type Approval System—Test Specification Number 1, 2002, IBR approved for § 113.05-7 of this chapter.

    (2) [Reserved]

    (o) National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), 1300 North 17th Street, Arlington, VA 22209, 703-841-3200, http://www.nema.org/.

    (1) NEMA Standards Publication ICS 2-2000—Industrial Control and Systems Controllers, Contactors, and Overload Relays, Rated 600 Volts, 2000 (“NEMA ICS 2”), IBR approved for § 111.70-3 of this chapter.

    (2) NEMA Standards Publication ICS 2.3-1995—Instructions for the Handling, Installation, Operation, and Maintenance of Motor Control Centers Rated not More Than 600 Volts, 1995 (“NEMA ICS 2.3”), IBR approved for § 111.70-3 of this chapter.

    (3) NEMA Standards Publication No. ICS 2.4-2003—NEMA and IEC Devices for Motor Service—a Guide for Understanding the Differences, 2003 (“NEMA ICS 2.4”), IBR approved for § 111.70-3 of this chapter.

    (4) NEMA Standards Publication No. ANSI/NEMA 250-1997—Enclosures for Electrical Equipment (1000 Volts Maximum), August 30, 2001 (“NEMA 250”), IBR approved for §§ 110.15-1, 111.01-9, 110.15-1, 113.10-7, 113.20-3, 113.25-11, 113.30-25, 113.37-10, 113.40-10, and 113.50-5 of this chapter.

    (5) NEMA Standards Publication No. WC-3-1992—Rubber Insulated Wire and Cable for the Transmission and Distribution of Electrical Energy, Revision 1, February 1994 (“NEMA WC-3”), IBR approved for § 111.60-13 of this chapter.

    (6) NEMA WC-70/ICEA S-95-658-1999—Standard for Non-Shielded Power Rated Cable 2000V or Less for the Distribution of Electrical Energy, 1999 (“NEMA WC-70”), IBR approved for § 111.60-13 of this chapter.

    (p) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169, 617-770-3000, http://www.nfpa.org.

    (1) NEC 2002 (NFPA 70)—National Electrical Code Handbook, Ninth Edition, 2002 (“NFPA NEC 2002”), IBR approved for §§ 111.05-33, 111.20-15, 111.25-5, 111.50-3, 111.50-7, 111.50-9, 111.53-1, 111.54-1, 111.55-1, 111.59-1, 111.60-7, 111.60-13, 111.60-23, 111.81-1, 111.105-1, 111.105-3, 111.105-5, 111.105-7, 111.105-9, 111.105-15, 111.105-17, and 111.107-1 of this chapter.

    (2) NFPA 70—National Electrical Code, 2011 Edition (“NFPA 70”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b), 111.106-5(c), and 111.108-3(b)(1) and (2) of this chapter.

    (3) NFPA 77—Recommended Practice on Static Electricity, 2000 (“NFPA 77”), IBR approved for § 111.105-27 of this chapter.

    (4) NFPA 99—Standard for Health Care Facilities, 2005 (“NFPA 99”), IBR approved for § 111.105-37 of this chapter.

    (5) NFPA 496—Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, 2003 (“NFPA 496”), IBR approved for § 111.105-7 of this chapter.

    (6) NFPA 496—Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, 2008 Edition (“NFPA 496 (2008)”), IBR approved for § 111.106-3(c) of this chapter.

    (7) NFPA 496—Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, 2013 Edition (“NFPA 496 (2013)”), IBR approved for § 111.108-3(d) of this chapter.

    (q) Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), 1333 Isaac Hull Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20376, 202-781-0000, http://www.navsea.navy.mil.

    (1) DDS 300-2—A.C. Fault Current Calculations, 1988 (“NAVSEA DDS 300-2”), IBR approved for § 111.52-5 of this chapter.

    (2) MIL-HDBK-299(SH)—Military Handbook Cable Comparison Handbook Data Pertaining to Electric Shipboard Cable Notice 1-1991 (Revision of MIL-HDBK-299(SH) (1989)), October 15, 1991 (“NAVSEA MIL-HDBK-299(SH)”), IBR approved for § 111.60-3 of this chapter.

    (r) UL (formerly Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.), 2600 NW. Lake Road, Camas, WA, 98607, 877-854-3577, http://www.ul.com.

    (1) UL 44—Standard for Thermoset-Insulated Wire and Cable, Fifteenth Edition, Mar. 22, 1999 (Revisions through and including May 13, 2002) (“UL 44”), IBR approved for § 111.60-11 of this chapter.

    (2) UL 50—Standard for Safety Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, Eleventh Edition, Oct. 19, 1995 (“UL 50”), IBR approved for § 111.81-1 of this chapter.

    (3) UL 62—Standard for Flexible Cord and Fixture Wire, Sixteenth Edition, Oct. 15, 1997 (“UL 62”), IBR approved for § 111.60-13 of this chapter.

    (4) UL 83—Standard for Thermoplastic-Insulated Wires and Cables, Twelfth Edition, Sept. 29, 1998 (“UL 83”), IBR approved for § 111.60-11 of this chapter.

    (5) UL 484—Standard for Room Air Conditioners, Seventh Edition, (Revisions through and including Sep. 3, 2002), Apr. 27, 1993 (“UL 484”), IBR approved for § 111.87-3 of this chapter.

    (6) UL 489—Molded-Case Circuit Breakers, Molded-Case Switches, and Circuit-Breaker Enclosures, Ninth Edition, (Revisions through and including Mar. 22, 2000), Oct. 31, 1996 (“UL 489”), IBR approved for §§ 111.01-15 and 111.54-1 of this chapter.

    (7) UL 514A—Metallic Outlet Boxes, Ninth Edition, Dec. 27, 1996 (“UL 514A”), IBR approved for § 111.81-1 of this chapter.

    (8) UL 514B—Conduit, Tubing, and Cable Fittings, Fourth Edition, Nov. 3, 1997 (“UL 514B”), IBR approved for § 111.81-1 of this chapter.

    (9) UL 514C—Standard for Nonmetallic Outlet Boxes, Flush-Device Boxes, and Covers, Second Edition, Oct. 31, 1988 (“UL 514C”), IBR approved for § 111.81-1 of this chapter.

    (10) UL 674—Standard for Safety: Electric Motors and Generators for Use in Division 1 Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Fourth Edition with revisions through Aug. 12, 2008 (dated Dec. 11, 2003) (“ANSI/UL 674”), IBR approved for § 111.106-3(b) of this chapter.

    (11) UL 674—Standard for Safety: Electric Motors and Generators for Use in Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Fifth Edition, dated May 31, 2011 (with revisions through July 19, 2013) (“ANSI/UL 674 (2013)”), IBR approved for § 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (12) UL 823—Electric Heaters for Use in Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Ninth Edition including revisions through Nov. 15, 2007 (dated Oct. 20, 2006) (“ANSI/UL 823”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (13) UL 844—Standard for Safety: Luminaires for Use in Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Twelfth Edition including revisions through Nov. 20, 2008 (dated Jan. 11, 2006) (“ANSI/UL 844”), IBR approved for § 111.106-3(b) of this chapter.

    (14) UL 844—Standard for Safety: Luminaires for Use in Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Thirteenth Edition, dated June 29, 2012 (“ANSI/UL 844 (2012)”), IBR approved for § 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (15) UL 913—Standard for Intrinsically Safe Apparatus and Associated Apparatus for Use in Class i, ii, and iii, Division 1, Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Sixth Edition, (Revisions through and including Dec. 15, 2003) August 8, 2002 (“UL 913”), IBR approved for § 111.105-11 of this chapter.

    (16) UL 913—Standard for Safety: Intrinsically Safe Apparatus and Associated Apparatus for Use in Class I, II, and III, Division 1, Hazardous Locations, Seventh Edition, Dated July 31, 2006 (including revisions through June 3, 2010) (“ANSI/UL 913”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (17) UL 1042—Standard for Electric Baseboard Heating Equipment, Apr. 11, 1994, IBR approved for § 111.87-3 of this chapter.

    (18) UL 1072—Standard for Medium-Voltage Power Cables, Third Edition, Dec. 28, 2001 (revisions through and including Apr. 14, 2003), IBR approved for § 111.60-1 of this chapter.

    (19) UL 1104—Standard for Marine Navigation Lights, Second Edition, Oct. 29, 1998, IBR approved for § 111.75-17 of this chapter.

    (20) UL 1203—Standard for Explosion-Proof and Dust-Ignition-Proof Electrical Equipment for Use in Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Third Edition, Sept. 7, 2000 (Revisions through and including Apr. 30, 2004), IBR approved for § 111.105-9 of this chapter.

    (21) UL 1203—Standard for Safety: Explosion-Proof and Dust-Ignition Proof Electrical Equipment for Use in Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Fourth Edition, Dated September 15, 2006 (including revisions through October 28, 2009) (“ANSI/UL 1203”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (22) UL 1309—Marine Shipboard Cables, First Edition, July 14, 1995, IBR approved for §§ 111.60-1, 111.60-3, and 111.106-5(a) of this chapter.

    (23) UL 1581—Reference Standard for Electrical Wires, Cables, and Flexible Cords, May 6, 2003, IBR approved for §§ 111.30-19, 111.60-2, and 111.60-6 of this chapter.

    (24) UL 1598—Luminaires, First Edition, Jan. 31, 2000, IBR approved for § 111.75-20 of this chapter.

    (25) UL 1598A—Standard for Supplemental Requirements for Luminaires for Installation on Marine Vessels, First Edition, Dec. 4, 2000, IBR approved for § 111.75-20 of this chapter.

    (26) UL 1604—Electrical Equipment for use in Class I and II, Division 2 and Class III Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Third Edition, Dated April 28, 1994 (including revisions through February 3, 2004) (“UL 1604”), IBR approved for § 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    (27) UL 2225—Cables and Cable-Fittings for Use in Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Second Edition, Dec. 21, 2005 (“ANSI/UL 2225”), IBR approved for § 111.106-3(b) of this chapter.

    (28) UL 2225—Standard for Safety: Cables and Cable-Fittings for use in Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Third Edition, dated February 25, 2011 (“ANSI/UL 2225 (2011)”), IBR approved for § 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.

    9. Amend § 110.15-1(b) by adding, in alphabetical order, the definitions for “Constructed”, “OCS activity”, and “Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)” to read as follows:
    § 110.15-1 Definitions.

    (b) * * *

    Constructed means the date—

    (1) The vessel's keel was laid; or

    (2) Construction identifiable with the vessel or facility began and assembly of that vessel or facility commenced comprising of 50 metric tons or at least 1 percent of the estimated mass of all structural material, whichever is less.

    OCS activity has the same meaning as it does in 33 CFR 140.10.

    Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) has the same meaning as it does in 33 CFR 140.10.

    10. Amend § 110.25-1 by adding paragraph (q) to read as follows:
    § 110.25-1 Plans and information required for new construction.

    (q) For vessels with hazardous locations to which subpart 111.108 of this chapter applies, plans showing the extent and classification of all hazardous locations, including information on—

    (1) Equipment identification by manufacturer's name and model number;

    (2) Equipment use within the system;

    (3) Parameters of intrinsically safe systems, including cables;

    (4) Equipment locations;

    (5) Installation details and/or approved control drawings; and

    (6) A certificate of testing, and listing or certification, by an independent laboratory or an IECEx Certificate of Conformity under the IECEx System, where required by the respective standard in § 111.108-3(b)(1), (2), or (3) of this chapter.

    PART 111—ELECTRIC SYSTEMS GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
    11. The authority citation for part 111 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Section 111.05-20 and Subpart 111.106 also issued under sec. 617, Pub. L. 111-281, 124 Stat. 2905.

    12. Add subpart 111.108 to read as follows: Subpart 111.108—Hazardous Locations Requirements on U.S. and Foreign MODUs, Floating OCS Facilities, Vessels Conducting OCS Activities, and U.S. Vessels That Carry Flammable and Combustible Cargo Sec. 111.108-1 Applicability. 111.108-2 [Reserved] 111.108-3 General requirements.
    § 111.108-1 Applicability.

    (a) This subpart applies to MODUs, floating OCS facilities, and vessels, other than offshore supply vessels regulated under subchapter L of this chapter, constructed after April 2, 2018 that engage in OCS activities.

    (b) U.S. MODUs, floating OCS facilities, and vessels other than OSVs regulated under subchapter L of this chapter and U.S. tank vessels that carry flammable and combustible cargoes, may comply with this subpart in lieu of §§ 111.105-1 through 111.105-15. All other sections of subpart 111.105 of this part remain applicable.

    § 111.108-2 [Reserved]
    § 111.108-3 General requirements.

    (a) Electrical installations in hazardous locations, where necessary for operational purposes, must be located in the least hazardous location practicable.

    (b) Electrical installations in hazardous locations must comply with paragraphs (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.

    (1) NFPA 70 Articles 500 through 504 (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1 of this chapter). Equipment required to be identified for Class I locations must meet the provisions of Sections 500.7 and 500.8 of NFPA 70 and must be tested and listed by an independent laboratory to any of the following standards:

    (i) ANSI/UL 674 (2013), ANSI/UL 823, ANSI/UL 844 (2012), ANSI/UL 913, ANSI/UL 1203, UL 1604 (replaced by ANSI/ISA 12.12.01) or ANSI/UL 2225 (2011) (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1 of this chapter).

    (ii) FM Approvals Class Number 3600, Class Number 3610, Class Number 3611, Class Number 3615, or Class Number 3620 (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1 of this chapter).

    (iii) CSA C22.2 Nos. 0-M91, 30-M1986, 157-92, or 213-M1987 (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1 of this chapter).

    Note to § 111.108-3(b)(1): See Article 501.5 of NFPA 70 (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1 of this chapter) for use of Zone equipment in Division designated spaces.

    (2) NFPA 70 Article 505 (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1 of this chapter). Equipment required to be identified for Class I locations must meet the provisions of Sections 505.7 and 505.9 of NFPA 70 and must be tested and listed by an independent laboratory to one or more of the types of protection in ANSI/ISA Series of standards incorporated in NFPA 70.

    Note to paragraph (b)(2). See Article 505.9(c)(1) of the NFPA 70 (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1 of this chapter) for use of Division equipment in Zone designated spaces.

    (3) Clause 6 of IEC 61892-7:2007 (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1 of this chapter) for all U.S. and foreign floating OCS facilities and vessels on the U.S. OCS or on the waters adjacent thereto; chapter 6 of 2009 IMO MODU Code (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1) for all U.S. and foreign MODUs; or clause 6 of IEC 60092-502 (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1) for U.S. tank vessels that carry flammable and combustible cargoes. Electrical apparatus in hazardous locations must be tested to IEC 60079-1:2007, IEC 60079-2:2007, IEC 60079-5:2007, IEC 60079-6:2007, IEC 60079-7:2006, IEC 60079-11:2011, IEC 60079-13:2010, IEC 60079-15:2010, IEC 60079-18:2009 or IEC 60079-25:2010 (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1) and certified by an independent laboratory under the IECEx System.

    (c) System components that are listed or certified under paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section must not be combined in a manner that would compromise system integrity or safety.

    (d) As an alternative to paragraph (b)(1) of this section, electrical equipment that complies with the provisions of NFPA 496 (2013) (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1 of this chapter) is acceptable for installation in Class I, Divisions 1 and 2. When equipment meeting this standard is used, it does not need to be identified and marked by an independent laboratory. The Commanding Officer, MSC, will evaluate equipment complying with this standard during plan review.

    Note to paragraph (d). The Commanding Officer, MSC, will generally consider it acceptable if a manufacturer's certification of compliance is indicated on a material list or plan.

    (e) Equipment listed or certified to ANSI/ISA 60079-18 (2012) or IEC 60079-18:2009, respectively, (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1 of this chapter) is not permitted in Class I, Special Division 1, or Zone 0 hazardous locations unless the encapsulating compound of Ex “ma” protected equipment is not exposed to, or has been determined to be compatible with, the liquid or cargo in the storage tank.

    (f) Submerged pump motors that do not meet the requirements of § 111.105-31(d), installed in tanks carrying flammable or combustible liquids with closed-cup flashpoints not exceeding 60° C (140 °F), must receive concept approval by the Commandant (CG-ENG) and plan approval by the Commanding Officer, MSC.

    (g) Internal combustion engines installed in Class I, Divisions 1 and 2 (Class I and IEC, Zones 1 and 2) must meet the provisions of ASTM F2876-10 (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1 of this chapter).

    Dated: March 20, 2015. J.G. Lantz, Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06946 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs 41 CFR Parts 60-1, 60-2, 60-4, and 60-50 Implementation of Executive Order 13672 Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity by Contractors and Subcontractors; Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of OMB Approval AGENCY:

    Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of collection of information requirements.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) is announcing that the collection of information requirements contained in the final rule titled “Implementation of Executive Order 13672 Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity by Contractors and Subcontractors” (41 CFR part 60) have been approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The OMB approval control number is 1250-0009.

    DATES:

    The final rule published December 9, 2014 (79 FR 72985), including the information collection requirements, will take effect on April 8, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Debra A. Carr, Director, Division of Policy and Program Development, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Room C-3325, Washington, DC 20210, (202) 693-0104. This is not a toll-free number.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OFCCP published a final rule entitled “Implementation of Executive Order 13672 Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity by Contractors and Subcontractors” on December 9, 2014. This final rule amends the regulations implementing Executive Order 11246 by replacing the words “sex, or national origin” with the words “sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin” as directed by Executive Order 13672, titled “Further Amendments to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity.” This final rule becomes effective on April 8, 2015.

    OFCCP submitted the information collection request on December 8, 2014 to OMB for approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. On March 17, 2015 OMB approved the collections of information contained in the final rule and assigned this collection OMB Control Number 1250-0009 title “Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity by Contractors and Subcontractors.” The approval for the collection expires on September 30, 2015. The approved collections of information are:

    • Amending the Equal Opportunity Clause: Sections 60-1.4(a) and (b) and 60-4.3(a);

    • Amending the Tag Line in Job Advertisements and Solicitations: Sections 60-1.4(a)(2), and 1.4(b)(2); and

    • Reporting Denied Visas to Department of State and OFCCP: Section 60-1.10.

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Register Notice for the final rule stated that compliance with the collection of information requirements was not required until these requirements are approved by OMB, and the Department of Labor publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing that OMB approved and assigned a control number to the requirements. As provided in 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.6(a), 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 members of the public who must respond to the collection of information that they are not required to respond to the collection of information unless the agency displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Debra A. Carr, Director, Division of Policy and Program Development, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07216 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-CM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 140918791-4999-02] RIN 0648-XD845 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Inseason Adjustment to the 2015 Gulf of Alaska Pollock Seasonal Apportionments AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; inseason adjustment.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is adjusting the 2015 seasonal apportionments of the total allowable catch (TAC) for pollock in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) by re-apportioning unharvested pollock TAC in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630 of the GOA. This action is necessary to provide opportunity for harvest of the 2015 pollock TAC, consistent with the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska.

    DATES:

    Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 26, 2015, until 2400 hours A.l.t., December 31, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

    The annual pollock TACs in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630 of the GOA are apportioned among four seasons, in accordance with § 679.23(d)(2). Regulations at § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B) allow the underharvest of a seasonal apportionment to be added to subsequent seasonal apportionments, provided that any revised seasonal apportionment does not exceed 20 percent of the seasonal apportionment for a given statistical area. Therefore, NMFS is increasing the B season apportionment of pollock in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630 of the GOA to reflect the underharvest of pollock in those areas during the A season. In addition, any underharvest remaining beyond 20 percent of the originally specified seasonal apportionment in a particular area may be further apportioned to other statistical areas. Therefore, NMFS also is increasing the B season apportionment of pollock to Statistical Area 620 based on the underharvest of pollock in Statistical Areas 610 and 630 of the GOA. These adjustments are described below.

    The B seasonal apportionment of the 2015 pollock TAC in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA is 3,632 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (80 FR 10250, February 25, 2015). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), hereby increases the B season apportionment for Statistical Area 610 by 726 mt to account for the underharvest of the TAC in Statistical Area 610 in the A season. This increase is not greater than 20 percent of the B seasonal apportionment of the TAC in Statistical Area 610. Therefore, the revised B seasonal apportionment of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 610 is 4,358 mt (3,632 mt plus 726 mt).

    The B seasonal apportionment of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA is 37,820 mt as established by the final 2015 and 206 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (80 FR 10250, February 25, 2015). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the Regional Administrator hereby increases the B seasonal apportionment for Statistical Area 620 by 5,693 mt to account for the underharvest of the TAC in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630 in the A season. This increase is in proportion to the estimated pollock biomass and is not greater than 20 percent of the B seasonal apportionment of the TAC in Statistical Area 620. Therefore, the revised B seasonal apportionment of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 620 is 43,513 mt (37,820 mt plus 5,693 mt).

    The B seasonal apportionment of pollock TAC in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA is 4,000 mt as established by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (80 FR 10250, February 25, 2015). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the Regional Administrator hereby increases the B seasonal apportionment for Statistical Area 630 by 800 mt to account for the underharvest of the TAC in Statistical Area 630 in the A season. This increase is not greater than 20 percent of the B seasonal apportionment of the TAC in Statistical Area 630. Therefore, the revised B seasonal apportionment of pollock TAC in Statistical Area 630 is 4,800 mt (4,000 mt plus 800 mt).

    Classification

    This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would provide opportunity to harvest increased pollock seasonal apportionments. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 25, 2015.

    The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

    This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 26, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07312 Filed 3-26-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 61 Tuesday, March 31, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 925 [Doc. No. AMS-FV-14-0106; FV15-925-2] Grapes Grown in a Designated Area of Southeastern California; Increased Assessment Rate AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the California Desert Grape Administrative Committee (Committee) to increase the assessment rate for the 2015 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0200 to $0.0250 per 18-pound lug of grapes handled. The Committee locally administers the marketing order and is comprised of producers and handlers of grapes grown and handled in a designated area of southeastern California. Assessments upon grape handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal period began on 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 15, 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 docket 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:

    Kathie Notoro, Marketing Specialist, or Martin Engeler, Regional Director, 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 Order No. 925 (7 CFR part 925), regulating the handling of grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern 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, grape handlers in a designated area of southeastern California are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as proposed herein would be applicable to all assessable grapes 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 periods from $0.0200 to $0.0250 per 18-pound lug of grapes handled.

    The grape 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 grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs of 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 periods, the Committee recommended, and the USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA based upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.

    The Committee met on October 30, 2014, and unanimously recommended 2015 expenditures of $135,500, a contingency reserve fund of $9,500, and an assessment rate of $0.0250 per 18-pound lug of grapes handled. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $110,000. The Committee recommended a crop estimate of 5,800,000 18-pound lugs, which is higher than the 5,500,000 18-pound lugs handled last year. The Committee also recommended carrying over a financial reserve of $40,000, which would increase to $49,500 if the contingency fund is not expended. The assessment rate of $0.0250 per 18-pound lug of grapes handled recommended by the Committee is $0.0050 higher than the $0.0200 rate currently in effect. The higher assessment rate, applied to shipments of 5,800,000 18-pound lugs, would generate $145,000 in revenue and be sufficient to cover the anticipated expenses.

    The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015 fiscal period include $15,500 for research, $17,000 for general office expenses, $62,750 for management and compliance expenses, $25,000 for research and preparation of materials such as the Committee's annual marketing policy statement, and $9,500 for a contingency reserve. The $15,500 research project is a continuation of a vine study in progress by the University of California, Riverside. In comparison, major expenditures for the 2014 fiscal period included $15,500 for research, $22,000 for general office expenses, and $62,500 for management and compliance expenses. Overall 2015 expenditures include an increase in management and compliance expenses and a decrease in general office expenses, and additional funds for a contingency reserve.

    The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by evaluating several factors, including estimated shipments for the 2015 season, budgeted expenses, and the level of available financial reserves. The Committee determined that the $0.0250 assessment rate would generate $145,000 in revenue to cover the budgeted expenses of $135,500, and a contingency reserve fund of $9,500.

    Reserve funds by the end of 2015 are projected to be $40,000 if the $9,500 added to the contingency fund is expended or $49,500 if it is not expended. Both amounts are well within the amount authorized under the order. Section 925.41 of the order permits the Committee to maintain approximately one fiscal period's expenses in reserve.

    The proposed assessment rate would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA based upon a 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 period 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 the Committee's 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 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods 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 14 handlers of southeastern California grapes who are subject to regulation under the marketing order and about 41 grape producers in the production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $750,000. Eleven of the 14 handlers subject to regulation have annual grape sales of less than $7,000,000, according to USDA Market News Service and Committee data. In addition, information from the Committee and USDA's Market News indicates that at least 10 of 41 producers have annual receipts of less than $750,000. Thus, it may be concluded that a majority of the grape handlers regulated under the order and about 10 of the producers could be classified as small entities under the Small Business Administration's definitions.

    This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2015 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0200 to $0.0250 per 18-pound lug of grapes. The Committee unanimously recommended 2015 expenditures of $135,500, a contingency reserve fund of $9,500, and an assessment rate of $0.0250 per 18-pound lug of grapes handled. The proposed assessment rate of $0.0250 is $0.0050 higher than the 2014 rate currently in effect. The quantity of assessable grapes for the 2015 season is estimated at 5,800,000 18-pound lugs. Thus, the $0.0250 rate should generate $145,000 in income. In addition, reserve funds at the end of the year are projected to be $49,500, which is well within the order's limitation of approximately one fiscal period's expenses.

    The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015 fiscal period include $15,500 for research, $17,000 for general office expenses, $62,750 for management and compliance expenses, $25,000 for research and preparation of materials such as the Committee's annual marketing policy statement, and $9,500 for the contingency reserve. In comparison, major expenditures for the 2014 fiscal period included $15,500 for research, $22,000 for general office expenses, and $62,500 for management and compliance expenses. Overall expenditures included an increase in management and compliance expenses and a decrease in general office expenses, and funding of a contingency reserve.

    Prior to arriving at this budget, the Committee considered alternative expenditures and assessment rates, to include not increasing the $0.0200 assessment rate currently in effect. Based on a crop estimate of 5,800,000 18-pound lugs, the Committee ultimately determined that increasing the assessment rate to $0.0250 would generate sufficient funds to cover budgeted expenses. Reserve funds at the end of the 2015 fiscal period are projected to be $40,000 if the $9,500 contingency fund is expended or $49,500 if it is not expended. These amounts are well within the amount authorized under the order.

    A review of historical crop and price information, as well as preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period, indicates that the producer price for the 2014 season averaged about $22.00 per 18-pound lug of California grapes handled. If the 2015 producer price is similar to the 2014 price, estimated assessment revenue as a percentage of total estimated producer revenue would be 0.11 percent for the 2015 season ($0.0250 divided by $22.00 per 18-pound lug).

    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 Executive Subcommittee and the Committee's meetings were widely publicized throughout the grape production area and all interested persons were invited to attend and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the October 30, 2014, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able 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. 0581-0189. 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 grape 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 15-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. Fifteen days is deemed appropriate because: (1) The 2015 fiscal period began on January 1, 2015, and the order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable grapes handled during such fiscal period; (2) the Committee needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses, which are incurred on a continuous basis; and (3) handlers 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 925

    Grapes, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 925 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 925—GRAPES GROWN IN A DESIGNATED AREA OF SOUTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 925 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 601-674.

    2. Section 925.215 is revised to read as follows:
    § 925.215 Assessment rate.

    On and after January 1, 2015, an assessment rate of $0.0250 per 18-pound lug is established for grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California.

    Dated: March 26, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07370 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0675; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-213-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and all Airbus Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracks at certain frames of the forward cargo door. This proposed AD would require a detailed inspection for cracking of certain forward cargo doors, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking at certain frames, which could result in the loss of structural integrity of the forward cargo door.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0675; 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:

    Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0675; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-213-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0228, dated October 20, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and all Airbus Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    An A330 aeroplane operator reported recently cases of crack findings on two different aeroplanes, at frame 20A and at frame 20B close to beam 3 of the forward cargo door. The first finding was detected during scheduled maintenance, while the second one was found during an inspection prompted by the first finding. Subsequent analyses of these cracks identified that the first crack initiated at frame 20B, which is the first primary load path, leading to excessive loads at frame 20A and consequent cracking. Nevertheless, on the other aeroplane, a crack was detected on frame 20A only. Rupture of both frames 20A and 20B could lead to frame 21 failure after a limited number of flight cycles (FC).

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, may potentially result in the loss of structural integrity of the forward cargo door, which could ultimately jeopardise the aeroplane's safe flight.

    Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A52L010-14 to provide instructions for a one-time inspection of frames 20A, 20B and 21 in the area of beam 3, until the half pitch between beam 2 and beam 3.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires identification of the Part Number (P/N) of the affected forward cargo doors, a one-time detailed inspection (DET) of each affected door and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s) [contacting Airbus].

    This [EASA] AD is considered to be an interim action and further AD action may follow.

    Required actions also include sending inspection results to Airbus. 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-2015-0675.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A52L010-14, dated September 30, 2014. The service information describes procedures for an inspection for cracking of certain forward cargo doors, and repair if necessary. The actions described in this AOT are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 89 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $7,565, or $85 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 32 work-hours and require parts costing $654,850, for a cost of $657,570 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-0675; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-213-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 15, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.

    (1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers, except those on which Airbus Modification 202702 has been embodied in production.

    (2) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, -313, -541, and -642 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks at certain frames of the forward cargo door. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking at certain frames, which could result in the loss of structural integrity of the forward cargo door.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection and Repair

    (1) Within 200 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection for cracking of an affected forward cargo door, having a part number identified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(xii) of this AD, at frames 20A, 20B, and 21 areas located above beam 3, from outside and inside, in accordance with Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A52L010-14, dated September 30, 2014.

    (i) F523-70500-000.

    (ii) F523-70550-004.

    (iii) F523-70500-006.

    (iv) F523-70500-008.

    (v) F523-70500-010.

    (vi) F523-70500-012.

    (vii) F523-70500-014.

    (viii) F523-70550-000.

    (ix) F523-70550-002.

    (x) F523-70500-004.

    (xi) F523-70550-008.

    (xii) F523-70550-050.

    (2) If any crack is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (h) Definition of Detailed Inspection

    For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is an intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as a mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.

    (i) Reporting Requirement

    Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD to Serge KIYMAZ, Structure Engineer, Structure Engineering—SEES1 CUSTOMER SERVICES, Phone: +33(0)5 82 05 10 33, Fax: +33(0)5 61 93 36 14, email: [email protected], at the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD. The report must include the information identified in Airbus AOT A52L010-14, dated September 30, 2014.

    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.

    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (j) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, installing a forward cargo door having any part number specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(xii) of this AD is permitted on any airplane, provided that prior to installation, the door is inspected and, depending on the findings, corrected, in accordance with Airbus AOT A52L010-14, dated September 30, 2014.

    (k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; 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 EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

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

    (l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0228, dated October 20, 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-2015-0675.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 19, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07172 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0679; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-182-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-13-06, for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes and all Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). AD 2012-13-06 currently requires a one-time detailed inspection to determine the length of the fire shut-off valve (FSOV) bonding leads and for contact or chafing of the wires, and corrective actions if necessary. Since we issued AD 2012-13-06, a determination was made that the description of the inspection area specified in the service information was misleading; therefore, some operators might have inspected incorrect bonding leads. This proposed AD would instead require a new one-time detailed inspection of the FSOV bonding leads to ensure that the correct bonding leads are inspected, and corrective action if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct contact or chafing of wires and the bonding leads, which, if not detected, could be a source of sparks in the wing trailing edge, and could lead to an uncontrolled engine fire. May 5, 2015.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    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-2015-0679; 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:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0679; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-182-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

    On June 21, 2012, we issued AD 2012-13-06, Amendment 39-17108 (77 FR 40485, July 10, 2012). AD 2012-13-06 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes and all Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes).

    Since we issued AD 2012-13-06, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0204, dated September 6, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    During a scheduled maintenance check, one operator reported inoperative Fire Shut Off Valve (FSOV). Investigations showed damage at wire located between engine 2 hydraulic FSOV and wing rear spar, in the zones 575/675, and at bonding lead, located between wing rib 7A and rib 8 below hydraulic pressure lines.

    Similar inspections on different aeroplanes have shown that one of the causes of damage is the contact between bonding lead and the harness, due to over length of the bonding lead.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to either:

    —a potential explosive condition on-ground if the FSOV, that is installed in fuel vapor zone is commanded to close position, or

    —a temporary uncontrolled engine fire, if combined with a fire event in the nacelle fed by an hydraulic leakage and not controlled by the fire extinguishing system.

    As the affected wire is not powered during normal operation, no defect can be detected unless a test is performed on the FSOV during maintenance check.

    EASA issued AD 2011-0084 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2011_0084.pdf/AD_2011-0084_Superseded] which required a one-time [detailed] inspection of the wires [for contact or chafing] located between [LH/RH] engines hydraulic FSOV and wing rear spar in the zones 575/675, and the bonding lead [for length] that is located between rib 7A and rib 8 below hydraulic pressure lines, and corrective actions [repair of wires or replacement of bonding leads] depending on findings.

    It appeared that the original issue of the Airbus inspection Service Bulletins (SB's) as well as EASA AD 2011-0084 might have caused possible misunderstandings on the exact bonding leads and wires that are required to be inspected.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2011-0084, which is superseded, and requires additional work on aeroplanes that have already been inspected in accordance with the instructions of the original issue of the SB's.

    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-2015-0679.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-24-0106, Revision 01, including Appendices 01, 02, 03, and 04, dated March 26, 2013 (for Model A300 series airplanes); and Service Bulletin A300-24-6108, Revision 01, including Appendices 01, 02, 03, and 04, dated March 26, 2013 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

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

    We estimate that it would take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $500 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $145,140, or $1,180 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $50, for a cost of $135 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

    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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-13-06, Amendment 39-17108 (77 FR 40485, July 10, 2012), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-0679; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-182-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 15, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2012-13-06, Amendment 39-17108 (77 FR 40485, July 10, 2012).

    (c) Applicability

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

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

    (2) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, and F4-622R airplanes.

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

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that the description of the inspection area specified in the service information was misleading; therefore, some operators might have inspected incorrect bonding leads. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct contact or chafing of wires and the bonding leads, which, if not detected, could be a source of sparks in the wing trailing edge, and could lead to an uncontrolled engine fire.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection of the Fire Shut-off Valve (FSOV) Bonding Leads

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD: Do a one-time detailed inspection to determine the length of the FSOV bonding leads, and to detect contact or chafing of the wires located on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides of the wing rear spar, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-0106, Revision 01, including Appendices 01, 02, 03, and 04, dated March 26, 2013 (for Model A300 series airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6108, Revision 01, including Appendices 01, 02, 03, and 04, dated March 26, 2013 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes); as applicable.

    (1) For airplanes on which the inspection required by paragraph (g) of AD 2012-13-06, Amendment 39-17108 (77 FR 40485, July 10, 2012), has not been done as of the effective date of this AD: Inspect within 4,500 flight hours or 30 months after August 14, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-13-06), whichever occurs first.

    (2) For airplanes on which the inspection required by paragraph (g) of AD 2012-13-06, Amendment 39-17108 (77 FR 40485, July 10, 2012), has been done as of the effective date of this AD: Inspect within 4,500 flight hours or 30 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    (h) Corrective Action for FSOV Bonding Leads

    If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, the length of the bonding lead(s) is more than 80 millimeters (mm) (3.15 inches): Before further flight, replace the bonding lead(s) with a new bonding lead having a length equal to 80 mm ± 2 mm (3.15 inches) ± 0.08 inch, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (i) Repair of the Wires of the LH and RH Sides

    If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any contact or chafing of the wires is found, repair the wires before further flight, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (j) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of August 14, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-13-06, Amendment 39-17108 (77 FR 40485, July 10, 2012), no person may install any bonding lead longer than 80 mm ± 2 mm (3.15 inches) ± 0.08 inch, located between the LH/RH engine hydraulic FSOV and wing rear spar in zones 575/675 on any airplane.

    (k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0204, dated September 6, 2013, 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-2015-0679.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this 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 24, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07280 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0677; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-244-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVI airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of corrosion on in-service air non-return valves. This proposed AD would require a revision to the Emergency Procedures section of the airplane flight manual (AFM). This proposed AD would also require a revision to the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate airworthiness limitations for the high pressure (HP) Stage 5 air non-return valves. We are proposing this AD to ensure the flightcrew is provided with procedures to mitigate the risks associated with failure of the HP Stage 5 air non-return valve. Failure of the HP Stage 5 air non-return valve in the open position could result in engine instability and uncommanded in-flight shutdown.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 15, 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 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept., P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone 800-810-4853; fax 912-965-3520; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.gulfstream.com/product_support/technical_pubs/pubs/index.htm. 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.

    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-2015-0677; 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:

    Eric Potter, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion and Services Branch, ACE-118A, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5583; fax: 404-474-5606; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0677; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-244-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We received a report of multiple instances of corrosion on in-service air non-return valves on Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GIV-X airplanes. This corrosion has resulted in failure of air non-return valves.

    The same part number air non-return valve is installed on the Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVI airplanes, but it serves a different purpose in that application, where it functions as an HP Stage 5 air non-return valve.

    Failure of the HP Stage 5 air non-return valve in the open position on the Model GVI airplanes could supply high-stage pressure to the low-stage port, resulting in engine instability and uncommanded in-flight shutdown. This condition could also have an adverse effect on subsequent in-flight engine re-start efforts if the flightcrew follows the current AFM procedures.

    In light of this information, the FAA has determined that certain procedures should be included in the FAA-approved AFM for Model GVI airplanes to ensure the flightcrew is provided with procedures to mitigate the risks associated with failure of the HP Stage 5 air non-return valve. We have also determined that the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, should be revised to incorporate an airworthiness limitation for the HP Stage 5 air non-return valves.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Section 04-08-20, Normal Airstart-Automatic; Section 04-08-30, Manual Airstart-Starter Assist; and Section 04-08-40, Manual Airstart-Windmilling; of Chapter 04, Emergency Procedures, of the Gulfstream GVI (G650) AFM, Document Number GAC-AC-G650-OPS-0001, Revision 5, dated August 12, 2013. This service information describes revised procedures for in-flight engine restart and operating procedures.

    In addition, we reviewed Section 05-10-10, Airworthiness Limitations, of Chapter 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, of the Gulfstream GVI (G650) Maintenance Manual (MM), Revision 4, dated September 30, 2013. This service information adds an airworthiness limitation for the HP Stage 5 air non-return valve.

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

    FAA's Determination

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

    Proposed AD Requirements

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

    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (j) of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

    Interim Action

    We consider this proposed AD interim action. The manufacturer is currently developing a modification that will positively address the unsafe condition identified in this proposed AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 52 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
    AFM revision 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $4,420 MM revision 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 0 85 4,420
    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. Amend § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation: Docket No. FAA-2015-0677; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-244-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 15, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVI airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 36, Pneumatic.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of corrosion on in-service air non-return valves. We are issuing this AD to ensure the flightcrew is provided with procedures to mitigate the risks associated with failure of the high pressure (HP) Stage 5 air non-return valve. Failure of the HP Stage 5 air non-return valve in the open position could result in engine instability and uncommanded in-flight shutdown.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Revision of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the Emergency Procedures section of the AFM by inserting Section 04-08-20, Normal Airstart-Automatic; Section 04-08-30, Manual Airstart-Starter Assist; and Section 04-08-40, Manual Airstart-Windmilling; of Chapter 04, Emergency Procedures; of the Gulfstream GVI (G650) AFM, Document Number GAC-AC-G650-OPS-0001, Revision 5, dated August 12, 2013.

    (h) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the airplane maintenance manual or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the requirement for the HP Stage 5 air non-return valve from Section 05-10-10, Airworthiness Limitations, of Chapter 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, of the Gulfstream GVI (G650) Maintenance Manual (MM), Revision 4, dated September 30, 2013. The initial compliance time for replacement of the HP Stage 5 air non-return valve is at the applicable time specified in Section 05-10-10, Airworthiness Limitations, of Chapter 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, of the Gulfstream GVI (G650) MM, Revision 4, dated September 30, 2013, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (i) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised, as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta 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.

    (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.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Eric Potter, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion and Services Branch, ACE-118A, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5583; fax: 404-474-5606; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept., P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone 800-810-4853; fax 912-965-3520; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.gulfstream.com/product_support/technical_pubs/pubs/index.htm. 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. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07301 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0678; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-207-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-13-04, for certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 2013-13-04 currently requires installing a power interruption protection circuit for the landing gear control interface unit (LGCIU). Since we issued AD 2013-13-04, we have determined that additional work is necessary to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. This proposed AD would require a new modification of any previously modified LGCIU. This proposed AD would also require revising the maintenance or inspection program to reduce a certain functional check interval. This proposed AD also adds airplanes to the applicability. We are proposing this AD to prevent untimely unlocking and/or retraction of the nose landing gear (NLG), which, while on the ground, could result in injury to ground personnel and damage to the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    • Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0678; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0678; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-207-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

    On June 14, 2013, we issued AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013). AD 2013-13-04 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. Since we issued AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013), the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0202, dated September 5, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    After a push back from the gate, an A320 aeroplane was preparing to initiate taxi, when an uncommanded nose landing gear (NLG) retraction occurred, causing the nose of the aeroplane to hit the ground. Investigations revealed that the retraction was caused by a combination of a power interruption to Landing Gear Control and Interface Units (LGCIU) and an internal hydraulic leak through the landing gear (LG) selector valve 40GA.

    Deeper investigations have revealed that LGCIU power interruption appears during engine start at each flight. Even though no incident has been reported in service, it has been determined that a non-compliance to the safety objective exists when combined with a dormant single failure of the selector valve seal leaking.

    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to further incidents of untimely unlocking and/or retraction of the NLG which, while on the ground, could result in injury to ground personnel and damage to the aeroplane.

    To address the possible hydraulic leak of the LG selector valve, EASA issued AD 2007-0065 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2007_0065.pdf/AD_2007-0065] currently at Revision 2.

    To address the risk of untimely unlocking and/or retraction of the NLG, EASA issued AD 2011-0202 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2011_0202.pdf/AD_2011-0202] to require installation of a power interruption protection circuit to the LGCIU and accomplishment of associated modifications.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it has been discovered that additional work is necessary to adequately correct this unsafe condition and consequently, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-32-1346 to Revision 05. An update of the maintenance programme is required as well, following the required modification.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2011-0202, which is superseded, and requires certain additional actions, as defined in the revised Airbus SB, as applicable to aeroplane model, and an update of the approved maintenance programme.

    The additional actions include a new modification of any previously modified LGCIU, and reducing a certain functional check interval. This proposed AD also adds airplanes on which Airbus modification 37866 has been embodied in production to the applicability. 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-2015-0678.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 05, dated January 13, 2012. The service information describes procedures for modifying the LGCIU. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

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

    The actions required by AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013), take about 48 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $8,220 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2013-13-04 is $12,300 per product.

    We estimate that it would take about 46 work-hours per product to comply with the new modification in this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $9,650 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the new modification on U.S. operators to be $11,539,560 or $13,560 per product.

    We estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to revise the maintenance or inspection program in this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of revising the maintenance program on U.S. operators to be $72,335 or $85 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-0678; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-207-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 15, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013).

    (c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that additional work is necessary to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to prevent untimely unlocking and/or retraction of the nose landing gear (NLG), which, while on the ground, could result in injury to ground personnel and damage to the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Modification

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013). For all airplanes except airplanes on which Airbus modification 37866 has been embodied in production: At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD: Install a power interruption protection circuit for the landing gear control interface unit (LGCIU), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 04, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated April 22, 2011 (for Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes other than the Model A319CJ (corporate jet) airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1349, Revision 03, including Appendix 1, dated October 5, 2011 (for Model A319CJ (corporate jet) airplanes).

    (1) For airplanes that have embodied Airbus Modification 38947 specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1348 during production or in service: Within 72 months after August 14, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013)).

    (2) For all airplanes other than those identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: Within 60 months after August 14, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013)).

    (h) Retained Re-Identification of Identification Plates

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013). For airplanes on which the installation required by paragraph (g) of this AD has been done before August 14, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013)) using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, dated December 4, 2008 (for Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes other than Model A319CJ (corporate jet) airplanes): Within the applicable times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, re-identify the identification plates, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 04, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated April 22, 2011 (for Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes other than Model A319CJ (corporate jet) airplanes).

    (i) New Modification

    For airplanes identified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD except airplanes on which Airbus modification 37866 has been embodied in production: Modify the LGCIU at the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 05, dated January 13, 2012, or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1349, Revision 03, including Appendix 1, dated October 5, 2011 (for Model A319CJ (corporate jet) airplanes). Accomplishing the modification in this paragraph terminates the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

    (1) For airplanes on which any LG selector valve having part number (P/N) 114079019 is installed and that have embodied Airbus Modification 38947 specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1348 during production or in service: Modify the LGCIU within 72 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) For airplanes on which any LG selector valve 40GA having a part number listed in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (i)(2)(xii) of this AD, provided the valve has the marking “DI” or “DI-BE” recorded on its amendment plates: Modify the LGCIU within 72 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) P/N 114079001.

    (ii) P/N 114079005.

    (iii) P/N 114079009.

    (iv) P/N 114079013.

    (v) P/N 114079001A.

    (vi) P/N 114079005A.

    (vii) P/N 114079009A.

    (viii) P/N114079015.

    (ix) P/N 114079001AB.

    (x) P/N 114079005AB.

    (xi) P/N 114079009AB.

    (xii) P/N 114079017.

    (3) For all airplanes other than those identified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD: Modify the LGCIU within 60 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (j) New Modification for Airplanes Previously Modified

    For airplanes that have been modified as of the effective date of this AD as specified in the applicable service information identified in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), (j)(3), or (j)(4) of this AD, except airplanes on which Airbus modification 37866 has been embodied in production: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, do the additional modification of the LGCIU, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 05, dated January 13, 2012.

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 02, dated November 4, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 03, dated January 7, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (4) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, including Appendices 01 and 02, Revision 04, dated April 22, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013).

    (k) New Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Before further flight after accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD or within 7 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate Task 32.30.00.17, “Functional Check of LGCIU Power Supply Relays,” of Section C-32 of Section C, Systems and Powerplant, of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Maintenance Review Board Report, Revision 18, dated March 2013. The initial compliance time is within 4,000 flight hours after accomplishing the additional modification of the LGCIU.

    (l) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for A319 Corporate Jet airplanes for the modification required by paragraph (g) of this AD if that modification was performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1349, dated December 4, 2008; Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1349, Revision 01, dated August 31, 2009; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1349, Revision 02, dated June 16, 2010.

    (m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

    (2) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013) are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

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

    (n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0202, dated September 5, 2013, 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-2015-0678.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 20, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07281 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0165; FRL-9925-31-Region 9] Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan; Reconsideration AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise part of the Arizona Regional Haze (RH) Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) applicable to the Coronado Generating Station (Coronado). In response to a petition for reconsideration from the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP), the owner/operator of Coronado, we are proposing to replace a plant-wide compliance method with a unit-specific compliance method for determining compliance with the best available retrofit technology (BART) emission limits for nitrogen oxides (NOX) from Units 1 and 2 at Coronado. While the plant-wide limit for the NOX emissions from Units 1 and 2 were established as 0.065 lb/MMBtu, we are proposing a unit-specific limit of 0.065 lb/MMBtu for Unit 1 and 0.080 lb/MMBtu for Unit 2. In addition, we are proposing to revise the work practice standard in the FIP for Coronado. Finally, we are proposing to remove the affirmative defense for malfunctions from the Arizona RH FIP, which applies to both Coronado and the Cholla Power Plant (Cholla).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the designated contact on or before May 15, 2015. Requests for a public hearing must be received on or before April 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0165, by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected].

    Fax: 415-947-3579 (Attention: Thomas Webb).

    Mail, Hand Delivery, or Courier: Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9, Air Division (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. Hand and courier deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on where and how to learn more about this proposal, attend a public hearing, or submit comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9, Planning Office, Air Division, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Thomas Webb can be reached at telephone number (415) 947-4139 and via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. General Information II. Background III. Proposed FIP Revision IV. EPA's Proposed Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. General Information A. Definitions

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

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

    • The initials ADEQ mean or refer to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

    • The words Arizona and State mean the State of Arizona.

    • The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit Technology.

    • The term Class I area refers to a mandatory Class I Federal area.1

    1 Although states and tribes may designate as Class I additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to “mandatory Class I Federal areas.”

    • The initials CBI mean or refer to Confidential Business Information.

    • The initials EGU mean or refer to Electric Generating Unit.

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

    • The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation Plan.

    • The initials LNB mean or refer to low-NOX burners.

    • The initials MMBtu mean or refer to million British thermal units.

    • The initials MW mean or refer to megawatts.

    • The initials NO X mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.

    • The initials NP mean or refer to National Park.

    • The initials OFA mean or refer to over fire air.

    • The initials RMB mean or refer to RMB Consulting and Research.

    • The initials S&L mean or refer to Sargent and Lundy, a consulting firm.

    • The initials SCR mean or refer to Selective Catalytic Reduction.

    • The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

    • The initials SRP mean or refer to the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District.

    • The initials UPL mean or refer to Upper Prediction Limit.

    B. Docket

    The proposed action relies on documents, information, and data that are listed in the index on http://www.regulations.gov under docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0165. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available (e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are accessible either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Planning Office of the Air Division, AIR-2, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket from Monday through Friday, 9-5:00 PDT, excluding Federal holidays.

    C. Instructions for Submitting Comments to EPA

    Written comments must be submitted on or before May 15, 2015. Submit your comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0165, by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected].

    Fax: 415-947-3579 (Attention: Thomas Webb).

    Mail, Hand Delivery, or Courier: Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9, Air Division (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. Hand and courier deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    EPA's policy is to include all comments received in the public docket without change. We may make comments available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or that is otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without going through http://www.regulations.gov, we will include your email address 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 not include special characters or any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    D. Submitting Confidential Business Information

    Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim as 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 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, you must submit a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the public docket. We will not disclose information so marked except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    E. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

    When submitting comments, remember to:

    • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (e.g., subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

    • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

    • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

    • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

    • Make sure to submit your comments by the identified comment period deadline.

    F. Public Hearings

    If anyone contacts EPA by April 15, 2015 requesting to speak at a public hearing, EPA will schedule a public hearing and announce the hearing in the Federal Register. Contact Thomas Webb at [email protected] or at (415) 947-4139 to request a hearing or to determine if a hearing will be held.

    II. Background A. Summary of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

    Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas in 1977 by adding section 169A to the CAA. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from man-made air pollution.” 2 It also directs states to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to revise their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate best available retrofit technology (BART) controls. These sources are referred to as “BART-eligible” sources.3 In the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress amended the visibility provisions in the CAA to focus attention on the problem of regional haze, which is visibility impairment produced by a multitude of sources and activities located across a broad geographic area.4 We promulgated the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) in 1999, which requires states to develop and implement SIPs to ensure reasonable progress toward improving visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas 5 by reducing emissions that cause or contribute to regional haze.6 Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for BART-eligible sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area.7

    2 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1).

    3 40 CFR 51.301.

    4 See CAA section 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7492.

    5 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas, and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). When we use the term “Class I area” in this action, we mean a “mandatory Class I Federal area.”

    6 See generally 40 CFR 51.308.

    7 40 CFR 51.308(e).

    B. History of FIP BART Determination

    The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted a RH SIP (“Arizona RH SIP”) under Section 308 of the RHR to EPA Region 9 on February 28, 2011. The Arizona RH SIP included BART determinations for NOX, particulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) for Units 1 and 2 at the Coronado Generating Station. We proposed on July 20, 2012, to approve ADEQ's BART determinations for PM and SO2, but to disapprove its determination for NOX at Coronado.8 In the same notice, we also proposed a FIP that included a NOX BART emission limit of 0.050 lb/MMbtu for Unit 1 and 0.080 lb/MMbtu for Unit 2 based on a 30-boiler-operating-day (BOD) rolling average. These limits correspond to the use of Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) control technology to reduce NOX emissions. We noted that a consent decree between SRP and EPA required the installation of SCR and compliance with a NOX emission limit of 0.080 lb/MMBtu (30-BOD rolling average) at Coronado Unit 2 by June 1, 2014. We explained that:

    8 77 FR 42834.

    . . . the emission limit of 0.080 lb/MMBtu established in the consent decree was not the result of a BART five-factor analysis, nor does the consent decree indicate that SCR at 0.080 lb/MMBtu represents BART. Nonetheless, given the compliance schedule established in the consent decree and the preliminary information received from SRP regarding the status of design and construction of the SCR system, it appears that achieving a 0.050 lb/MMBtu emission rate may not be technically feasible. Even if it is feasible, achievement of this emission rate may not be cost-effective. Therefore, we are proposing an emission limit of 0.080 lb/MMBtu as BART for NOX at Unit 2. However, if we do not receive sufficient documentation establishing that achievement of a more stringent limit is infeasible or not cost-effective, then we may determine that a more stringent limit for this unit is required in our final action.9

    9 77 FR 42864.

    In its comments on our proposal, SRP asserted that a NOX emission rate of 0.050 lb/MMBtu was not achievable at either of the Coronado units, due to their startup/shutdown operating profile. In support of this assertion, SRP submitted reports by two consultants, Sargent and Lundy (S&L) and RMB Consulting and Research (RMB), which indicated that the Coronado units could achieve a rolling 30-day emission rate in the range of 0.053 to 0.072 lb/MMBtu.10 Specifically, the S&L report examined the effect of multiple startup/shutdown events on emission rates over a 30-day period for Unit 2. The S&L report also examined potential measures to improve the performance of the current SCR design for Unit 2, including installation of a “low load temperature control system.” We explained the purpose of this control system in the preamble to our final rule:

    10 77 FR 72555.

    As described in the S&L report, periods of low load operation generally consist of operation between loads of 138 MW to 270 MW (operation above 270 MW can be considered “high” load). Broadly speaking, the temperature in the SCR system will fall below 599 degrees F during these periods of low load operation, which is the minimum temperature required for effective NOX control. A low load temperature control system increases the temperature at the SCR inlet in order to maintain 599 degrees F, allowing operation of the SCR system during periods of low load. Without this control system, the Coronado Unit 2 SCR system will not operate during periods of low load.11

    11Id.

    The low-load temperature-control system is referred to as both “pegging steam” and “steam reheat” in the various documents submitted by SRP. During periods of low load (138 MW to 270 MW), a certain amount of steam is routed to the SCR inlet in order to raise the inlet temperature to above 599 degrees F, which allows for proper operation of the SCR. At loads below 138 MW, the SCR could not operate even with the low-load temperature-control system.

    In setting the NOX emission limits for Coronado in the final Arizona RH FIP, we considered the information and analyses contained in the S&L report and the RMB report.12 We concluded that:

    12Id. at 72554-56.

    In recognition of the work already performed by SRP to meet the consent decree emission limit of 0.080 lb/MMBtu for Unit 2, and to avoid interfering with SRP's ability to meet that requirement by the deadline of June 1, 2014, we have decided not to require a BART emission limit for Coronado 2 more stringent than 0.080 lb/MMBtu. Instead, we are finalizing a plant-wide NOX emission limit for Coronado of 0.065 lb/MMBtu on a rolling 30-day average, which will provide a sufficient compliance margin for startup and shutdown events. We are also structuring the compliance determination method so that, when one of the two units is not operating, its emissions from the preceding thirty boiler-operating-days will continue to be included in the two-unit average. We expect that SRP can meet this limit by installing a low load temperature control system on Unit 2 and an SCR system including a low load temperature control system on Unit 1.13

    13Id. at 72555.

    Please see our final rule published on December 5, 2012, for further information on the BART determinations and compliance methodology. C. Petition for Reconsideration and Stay

    We received a petition from SRP on February 4, 2013, requesting partial reconsideration and administrative stay of our final rule under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act.14 EPA Region 9 sent a letter on April 9, 2013, to representatives of SRP informing the company that we were granting partial reconsideration of the final rule for the Arizona RH FIP.15 In particular, we stated that we were granting reconsideration of the compliance methodology for NOX emissions from Units 1 and 2 at Coronado and that we would issue a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comment on an alternative compliance methodology. We also noted that, because we initially proposed different NOX emission limits for the two units, we would seek comment on the appropriate emission limit for each of the units. Today's notice of proposed rulemaking includes each of these elements, and constitutes EPA's proposed action for the reconsideration.

    14 Petition of Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District for Partial Reconsideration and Stay of EPA's Final Rule: “Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans” (February 4, 2013).

    15 Letters from Jared Blumenfeld, EPA, to Norman W. Fichthorn and Aaron Flynn, Hunton and Williams (April 9, 2013).

    III. Proposed FIP Revision

    EPA is proposing a unit-specific compliance method and separate emission limits for NOX on Units 1 and 2 at the Coronado Generating Station. We also are proposing to revise the work practice requirement that applies to Coronado and to remove the affirmative defense for malfunctions that is currently included in the FIP for Coronado and Cholla.

    A. Proposed Compliance Method for Unit-Specific Emission Limits

    In a letter sent to EPA on November 18, 2013, SRP outlined its views concerning the compliance method and emission limit at Coronado.16 Regarding the compliance method, SRP requested that EPA use the same approach specified in the Consent Decree, noting that this would ensure “consistency across applicable requirements.” 17 EPA notes that the Consent Decree contains two different types of NOX emission limits: Unit-specific 30-day rolling lb/MMBtu limits and a 365-day plant-wide rolling NOX tonnage limit.18 For purposes of BART, we consider a 30-BOD rolling lb/MMBtu limit to be appropriate.19 Therefore, we propose to set a separate 30-BOD rolling lb/MMBtu limit for each of the two Coronado Units, based on the following compliance method:

    16 Letter from Kelly Barr, SRP, to Deborah Jordan, EPA (November 18, 2013).

    17Id. at 4.

    18 Consent Decree in United States v. Salt River Project, CV 08-1479-PHX-JAT (D. Az.) (entered Dec. 19, 2008) (“Coronado Consent Decree”).

    19 BART Guidelines, 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section V (“For EGUs, specify an averaging time of a 30-day rolling average, and contain a definition of “boiler operating day” that is consistent with the definition in the proposed revisions to the NSPS for utility boilers in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da.”).

    The 30-day rolling average NOX emission rate for each unit shall be calculated in accordance with the following procedure: First, sum the total pounds of NOX emitted from the unit during the current boiler operating day and the previous twenty-nine (29) boiler-operating days; second, sum the total heat input to the unit in MMBtu during the current boiler operating day and the previous twenty-nine (29) boiler-operating days; and third, divide the total number of pounds of NOX emitted during the thirty (30) boiler-operating days by the total heat input during the thirty (30) boiler-operating days. A new 30-day rolling average NOX emission rate shall be calculated for each new boiler operating day. Each 30-day rolling average NOX emission rate shall include all emissions that occur during all periods within any boiler operating day, including emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

    This method is identical to that employed for the unit-specific 30-day rolling lb/MMBtu limit in the Consent Decree, except that it uses the term “boiler operating day” instead of “Unit Operating Day.” This method would replace the plant-wide method promulgated in the final rule at 40 CFR 52.145(f)(5)(B)(ii). All other compliance-related requirements, including the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, would remain as promulgated. B. Proposed Emission Limits for Coronado Units 1 and 2

    Because we are proposing to replace the plant-wide average emission rate limit for NOX with unit-specific limits, we also must propose separate emission limits for each of the two units at Coronado. However, we are not reconsidering our determination that BART for Coronado Units 1 and 2 is an emission limit consistent with the use of SCR, low-NOX burners (LNB) with over fire air (OFA), and low-load temperature control. Nor are we conducting a new five-factor analysis for these units. Rather, we are reconsidering only the emission limits achievable with SCR and LNB with OFA at Coronado Units 1 and 2. Due to the different regulatory requirements that currently apply to these units, we have analyzed them separately.

    1. Proposed Emission Limit for Coronado Unit 1 a. SRP's Analysis of Unit 1

    After EPA granted reconsideration, SRP submitted additional information to EPA, including two reports prepared by S&L and RMB concerning the achievability of various NOX emission limits at Coronado Unit 1.20 The 2013 S&L analysis presented modeling results intended to predict NOX emissions from Unit 1 under various operating scenarios.21 The 2013 RMB report further analyzed the achievable NOX emission limit at Coronado Unit 1, “based on the results of S&L's modeling and application of an appropriate compliance margin.” 22 In particular, RMB applied an “upper prediction limit” (UPL) technique in order to account for “the impact of measurement uncertainty and other process variation.” 23

    20 Letter from Kelly J. Barr, SRP, to Deborah Jordan, EPA (November 18, 2013) and attachments.

    21 Attachment 1 to November 18, 2013, Letter, Sargent and Lundy LLC Report SL-011754, Salt River Project Coronado Generating Station Unit 1 SCR NOX emissions Modeling (November 14, 2013).

    22 Attachment 2 to November 18, 2013 Letter, Technical Memorandum from RMB Consulting & Research, Inc. to Salt River Project NOX limits Compliance monitoring Consideration on Coronado Unit 1 (October 28, 2013) at 1.

    23Id.

    The 2013 S&L report consisted of an emission analysis of the SCR for Unit 1. Similar to the 2012 S&L report, which concerned Unit 2, the 2013 analysis examined the effect of startup/shutdown events, low-load cycling, and steam reheat on emissions over a 30-day average. In summary, the 2013 S&L analysis examined load profile data for Unit 1 for the period from January 1, 2011, through July 31, 2013, and estimated NOX emission rates with the hypothetical use of SCR for the various load profiles that occurred during this period. S&L's estimates of SCR performance and emission rate under various load profiles are summarized in Table 1. For greater detail, consult the 2013 S&L report, which is included in the docket for this proposed rule.

    Table 1—Unit 1 Load Profile of NOX Emissions Load profile Unit 1 emission rate
  • (lb/MMBtu)
  • Description
    SCR Design Target Emission Rate 0.030 Full load performance guarantee per vendor. SCR emission rate at full load steady state conditions 0.040 Actual controlled NOX emissions are expected to average 0.01 above the design target rate. SCR emission rate when load increasing by more than 10 MW/hour 0.050 Emission expected to change as control systems adjust to changes in boiler load, gas flow rates, and NOX loading. SCR emission rate when load decreasing by more than 10 MW/hour 0.035 Emission expected to change as control systems adjust to changes in boiler load, gas flow rates, and NOX loading. Emission rate during cold start, oil-firing 24 0.10 Low NOX burners (LNB) only, no SCR during startup. Unit 1 initially uses fuel oil for startup, and transitions to coal to complete startup. Emission rate during cold start, coal-firing 0.25 LNB only, no SCR during startup. Emission rate during warm start, oil-firing 25 0.19 LNB only, no SCR during startup. Unit 1 initially uses fuel oil for startup, and transitions to coal to complete startup. Emission rate during warm start, coal-firing 0.28 LNB only, no SCR during startup. Emission rate during low load periods 0.29 For low-load periods with no steam reheat (LNB-only, no SCR control). SCR emission rate during initial shutdown 0.10 Emission rate during shutdown with SCR inlet >599 degrees F, allowing for SCR operation. Emission rate after SCR shutdown 0.45 LNB only. Corresponds to shutdown period after SCR inlet <599 degrees F.

    Based on the emission rates summarized in Table 1 above, the S&L analysis examined the 30-day emission rate for Unit 1 assuming several combinations of startup events and loading profiles. The highest controlled 30-day average emission rate for several selected scenarios is presented in Table 2. The full analysis, including selected spreadsheets that contain the emission rate modeling for certain operating scenarios, is available in the docket for this proposed rule.26

    24 The term “cold startup” is not specifically defined by SRP or S&L in its analysis. Typically, a “cold startup” refers to a startup event that occurs after the boiler has been offline for approximately 24 to 48 hours or longer. Compared to hot or warm startups, a cold startup event produces greater emissions because it is longer in duration and consumes more fuel.

    25 The term “hot” or “warm” startup is not defined by SRP or S&L in its analysis. However, a “hot” or “warm” typically refers to a startup event that occurs when the boiler has been offline for less than 24 hours. Because certain elements of the boiler may still be hot or warm following shutdown, less time is required to reach normal operating temperatures and conditions. As a result, hot and warm startup events produce fewer emissions than cold startup events because they are shorter in duration and consume less fuel.

    26 “SRP Coronado Generating Station, Unit 1 SCR NOX Emissions Modeling”, Prepared by Sargent and Lundy, Report SL-011754, November 14, 2013.

    Table 2—Summary of Unit 1 Emission Modeling Results [Per S&L analysis] Scenario Description Controlled NOX emission rates based on 30-day
  • average
  • (lb/MMBtu)
  • 0 Full Load high-cycle loading 0.041 1b Low-load cycling for 30 days (with steam reheat) 0.048 5a One cold startup with low-load cycling (with steam reheat) 0.055 5b Two cold startups with low-load cycling (with steam reheat) 0.061 5c Three cold startups with low-load cycling (with steam reheat) 0.065

    The supplemental information submitted by SRP on November 13, 2013, also included a report from RMB. In this report, RMB stated that it used equations for calculating the UPL, which is a statistical technique that examines an existing set of data points and predicts the chances (i.e., the probability) of future data points (in this case, emission rates). In general terms, the UPL is a value that is calculated from a data set that identifies the emission rate that a source or group of sources is meeting and would be expected to meet a specified percent of the time that the source is operating. For example, the 99 percent UPL value is the emission level that the source(s) would be predicted to be below during 99 out of 100 performance tests. The UPL value is calculated using an equation based on the average and variance of a data set (in this instance, the aforementioned emission rates), the distribution of the data, quantity of data points, confidence level, and common statistical values such as t-scores and z-scores. The underlying regulatory concept behind the use of UPL values is that a source should have only a very small risk of being determined to be in noncompliance when the emission control system is actually performing as expected under each type of normal operation that takes place. UPL values are used in a wide variety of industries for predictive purposes, including finance, manufacturing, and healthcare.

    RMB stated that it applied the equations for calculating UPL values to CEMS data for Unit 1, as well as to the CEMS data from three SCR-equipped coal-fired boilers that it considered comparable to Unit 1.27 To summarize, RMB calculated the 99th percentile emission rate for each of the four units, and compared the 99th percentile emission rate to the average emission rate of each respective unit. RMB indicated that for Unit 1, the 99th percentile emission rate was three to seven percent greater than average emission rates. For the three SCR-equipped units examined, RMB reports that the 99th percentile emission rate was approximately 15 percent higher than average emission rates. RMB then adjusted the average 30-day emission rates from the S&L emission modeling analysis for each operating scenario upwards by 15 percent in order to account for the variability indicated by the UPL values. The results of RMB's analysis are summarized in Table 3.

    27 The CEMS data examined for Unit 1 corresponded to operation with low NOX burners, as Unit 1 does not presently operate with SCR. For the three other units, CEMS data corresponding to SCR operation was examined.

    Table 3—Summary of Unit 1 Emission Modeling Results [Per RMB report] Scenario Description Controlled NOX emission rate
  • (30-day average in
  • lb/MMBtu)
  • 1b Low-load cycling for 30 days (with steam reheat) 0.055 5a One cold startup with low-load cycling (with steam reheat) 0.062 5b Two cold startups with low-load cycling (with steam reheat) 0.069 5c Three cold startups with low-load cycling (with steam reheat) 0.073

    RMB then indicated that if the emission limit were considered a “never to be exceeded value,” an additional compliance margin should be incorporated given that the 99th percentile value does not account for the entire potential range of operating conditions that may occur. RMB indicated that rounding upwards to the next highest reasonable interval, 0.080 lb/MMBtu, would provide an approximate 10 percent compliance margin, and proposed that this value represents the lowest achievable NOX emission limit for Unit 1. The full RMB analysis is included in the docket for this proposed rule.

    SRP provided additional information to EPA on April 28, 2014, that included documentation on SCR design parameters for Unit 2, the number of historical startup events occurring within single 30-day periods for Units 1 and 2, and expected future operation of Units 1 and 2.28

    28 Letter from Kelly J. Barr, SRP, to Deborah Jordan, EPA (April 28, 2014) and attachments.

    b. EPA's Evaluation of Unit 1

    In proposing a unit-specific limit for Unit 1, we have reviewed each of the analyses provided by SRP including the emission spreadsheets developed by S&L for several load profile scenarios. In addition, we have compared SRP's emission estimates for certain load profiles with actual Unit 1 emission data as reported to the Air Markets Program Data (AMPD).29 We consider the emission rates used by S&L for the various load profiles to be reasonable and generally consistent with emission data reported to AMPD. We also consider the scenarios examined by S&L to be realistic depictions of load profile scenarios that were historically experienced by the Coronado units. AMPD and Energy Information Administration (EIA) records indicate periods of both high-load and low-load cycling, as well as 30-day periods with multiple shutdown periods.30 The greatest number of cold startups occurring in a single 30-day period examined by the the S&L load profile scenarios was three. Although we have not identified an actual historical 30-day period exhibiting three cold startups, we consider this a reasonable assumption given both the number of startup events that have historically occurred,31 as well as SRP's expectation that the Coronado units will experience greater periods of operation in load-following service or non-operation given the expanded role of renewable energy sources.32 As a result, we consider the emission rate of 0.065 lb/MMBtu, which corresponds to a scenario consisting of low-load cycling operations (with steam reheat) and 3 cold startups within a 30-day period, to be a reasonable estimate of average SCR performance for Unit 1.

    29 As noted in SRP's April 28, 2014 information response, we requested detailed emission spreadsheets for several scenarios, including high-load cycling, low-load cycling, and low-load cycling including multiple startups.

    30 See spreadsheet “Coronado 2008-11 NOX Emission Data (daily).xls”.

    31 See SRP's April 28, 2014 letter, Attachment A (Multiple Start Summary).

    32 See April 28, 2014 letter. Expanded periods of load following service will result in greater periods of low-load cycling, as well as increase the need for startup/shutdown events.

    With regard to the RMB analysis, we are unable to assess fully this analysis, as it lacked documentation regarding many of its components. In particular, RMB did not identify the UPL equation(s) it used or the emission rate characteristics, data distribution, number of emission rates, or t- or z-scores. RMB did not present specific evidence that the two SCR-equipped units are representative of how Coronado will perform when carefully operated after installation of SCR. In particular, RMB did not address the possibility that the SCR systems on these two units malfunctioned or were incorrectly operated during the data period. Accordingly, we are unable to evaluate RMB's assertions regarding its UPL calculations.

    More fundamentally, we do not consider a UPL analysis to be necessary or appropriate for use in establishing an emission limit for Coronado Unit 1. Because the UPL method is a statistical technique, it is essentially an analytical tool that can be applied to any data set and produce a UPL value for a specified percentile (i.e., 95th, 98th, 99th percentile, etc). While UPL has been used by EPA to establish emission standards in other rulemakings, the context for those rulemakings differs significantly from the context for this action. In general, EPA has employed the UPL method in instances where it was necessary to establish an emission standard based on a limited number of emission measurements, such as when establishing maximum available control technology (MACT) standards or new source performance standards (NSPS).33 The emission data available for establishing MACT standards are generally in the form of short-term, three-run stack tests, with each test-run lasting between one and four hours. These short-term tests represent three “snapshots” of a source's operation and generally will not represent a source's full range of operations or emission levels. Accordingly, when establishing an emission standard that applies continuously across an entire source category, EPA considers it necessary to account for the emissions and operations over a fuller range using data sets that encompass longer time periods (i.e., collected over several months to a year or more of operation). In such situations, EPA applies the UPL method to predict the emission levels the source is achieving at times other than when the stack testing is conducted. For example, it is common for EPA to establish an emission standard for a particular source category for which only three to six test results may be available. Because these three to six data points do not represent the full range of unit operations, the UPL method is employed to “fill in the blanks” when developing an emission standard that is appropriate for a broader range of operations. As described in a memo regarding the use of UPL in establishing MACT standards, “EPA did not have emissions information from sources at all times each source was operating, and therefore determined it was necessary to apply a methodology that addressed the fact that the data were not complete.” 34 Furthermore, while EPA has used the UPL method in other instances besides MACT standards, such as in developing NSPS, the emission data sets for those rulemakings were also very limited, numbering at most in the dozens of test results for specific source subcategories.

    33 In particular, EPA has used the UPL method in the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS), also known as the Boiler MACT, the Wool Fiberglass MACT, the Phosphoric Acid and Phosphate Fertilizer MACT, and the Nitric Acid Plant NSPS.

    34 Memorandum from Susan Fairchild to Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041, “Use of the Upper Prediction Limit for Calculating MACT Floors” (July 14, 2014); see also Memo from Susan Fairchild to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041, “Approach for Applying the Upper Prediction Limit to Limited Datasets” (October 6, 2014).

    By contrast, the data set available here is much more extensive, represents continuous data collected over a long period of time, and covers a wider range of unit operations. In particular, the UPL analyses performed by RMB for Coronado Unit 1 and the three SCR-equipped coal-fired boilers examined actual emission data from CEMS (or in the case of Coronado Unit 1, modeled emission data based on actual load operation) that consisted of thousands of data points collected continuously over periods of time ranging from eight months to over a year. As noted above, this is a different context than rulemakings in which EPA has employed the UPL method to develop category-wide emission standards based on, at most, a few dozen data points. Given the size and scope of the data set available in this instance, we propose to find that the use of the UPL method is not appropriate.35

    35 In addition, we note that we consider RMB's application of its UPL-estimated variability to the results of the S&L modeling inappropriate. The S&L modeling results already account for substantial degree of operational variability by assuming a conservative operating scenario of low-load cycling and 3 cold startups in a single 30-day period. Applying the UPL-estimated variability on top of the S&L modeling could be described, to a degree, as “double counting” operational variability.

    Finally, we do not agree with RMB's suggestion that the emission limit for Coronado Unit 1 should be rounded up to provide an additional compliance margin. We note that the UPL methodology used by EPA for MACT standard development does not include rounding up to the next highest reasonable interval as suggested by RMB. Given the conservative nature of the assumptions in the S&L analysis, we do not consider additional compliance margin appropriate in this instance.

    Accordingly, in evaluating an appropriate limit for Coronado Unit 1, we have relied primarily upon the information provided in the S&L analysis. This analysis found that an emission rate of 0.065 lb/MMBtu would be appropriate for a scenario consisting of low-load cycling operations (with steam reheat) and three cold startups within a 30-day period. As described above, we consider this to be a reasonable estimate of SCR performance for Coronado Unit 1. We are are therefore proposing a limit of 0.065 lb/MMBtu on a rolling 30-BOD basis.

    2. Proposed Emission Limit for Coronado Unit 2 a. SRP's Analysis of Unit 2

    SRP also provided documentation in its April 28, 2014 letter of Unit 2 design parameters and indicated that it is proceeding with the installation of a low-load temperature-control system (i.e., steam reheat) for Unit 2. In addition, SRP stated that the design parameters demonstrate that Unit 2 was properly designed to meet the 0.080 lb/MMBtu NOX limit required by the Coronado Consent Decree. Based on these design parameters and emission modeling performed by S&L, SRP reiterated that the design of Unit 2 could not accommodate a NOX emission limit lower than that required by the Consent Decree. SRP has met certain terms of the Consent Decree by operating Unit 2 with SCR since June 1, 2014. Finally, in response to an inquiry from EPA regarding the possibility of a work practice standard for the SCR system on Unit 2, SRP indicated that certain language from the Coronado Consent Decree and the Title V operating permit requiring proper operation of NOX controls are sufficient to ensure that NOX emissions are minimized.

    b. EPA's Evaluation of Unit 2

    In our final rule published on December 5, 2012, establishing the NOX emission limit for Coronado Units 1 and 2, we stated the following regarding Unit 2:

    In recognition of the work already performed by SRP to meet the consent decree emission limit of 0.080 lb/MMBtu for Unit 2, and to avoid interfering with SRP's ability to meet that requirement by the deadline of June 1, 2014, we have decided not to require a BART emission limit for Coronado 2 more stringent than 0.080 lb/MMBtu.

    The information subsequently provided by SRP supports the assertion that the emission limit in the Consent Decree of 0.080 lb/MMBtu represents BART for this unit. In particular, the fact that SRP has already installed a low-load temperature-control system at this unit in order to meet the 0.080 lb/MMBtu limit suggests that a lower limit would not be achievable on a 30-BOD basis. As a result, we propose to set a unit-specific NOX limit for Unit 2 of 0.080 lb/MMBtu, based on a rolling 30-BOD basis.

    In addition, we propose to revise the work practice standard at 40 CFR 52.145(f)(10) to require the operation of the SCR at all times that Unit 2 is in operation, consistent with technological limitations.36 As noted in SRP's letter dated April 28, 2014, the Consent Decree contains a work practice standard for Unit 2. This language is included in the facility's current Title V operating permit.37 We are proposing to include this same language in the BART FIP in order to ensure that the SCR is operated at all times during which it is technologically feasible to do so. In particular, we note that, based on the information provided by SRP, periods of low-load operation are a significant element of the Coronado units' operations. Given the installation of a low-load temperature-control system on Unit 2, the SCR system is now capable of operating at lower loads (i.e., between about 138 MW and 270 MW) on Unit 2. Accordingly, we are proposing to revise the work practice standard in the FIP to ensure that the SCR system operates during these periods of low-load operation.

    36 See CAA Section 302(k) (defining “emission limit” to include “any requirement relating to the operation or maintenance of a source to assure continuous emission reduction, and any design, equipment, work practice or operational standard promulgated under this chapter”).

    37 Specific Conditions II.E.2.b and c, Title V Operating Permit No. 52693, issued December 6, 2011.

    C. Proposed Removal of Affirmative Defense for Malfunctions

    The Arizona RH FIP incorporates by reference certain provisions of the Arizona Administrative Code that establish an affirmative defense for excess emissions due to malfunctions.38 In the interim since EPA's promulgation of that FIP, the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that CAA sections 113 and 304 preclude EPA from creating affirmative defense provisions in the Agency's own regulations imposing emission limits on sources.39 The court found that such affirmative defense provisions purport to alter the jurisdiction of federal courts to assess liability and impose penalties for violations of those limits in private civil enforcement cases. The court's holding makes it clear that the CAA does not authorize promulgation of such a provision by EPA. In particular, the court's decision turned on an analysis of CAA sections 113 (“Federal enforcement”) and 304 (“Citizen suits”). These provisions apply with equal force to a civil action brought to enforce the provisions of a FIP. The logic of the court's decision thus applies to the promulgation of a FIP, and precludes EPA from including an affirmative defense provision in a FIP. Furthermore, in light of the DC Circuit's decision, EPA has proposed to find R18-2-310(B) and R18-2-310(C) substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and to issue a SIP call with respect to these provisions.40 Consistent with the reasoning of the DC Circuit and EPA's proposed SIP call, we are proposing to remove the affirmative defense provision in the Arizona Regional Haze FIP. In addition to Coronado, this revision would also affect Cholla.

    38See 40 CFR 52.145(f)(11) (incorporating by reference R-18-2-101, paragraph 65; R18-2-310, sections (A), (B), (D) and (E); and R18-2-310.01).

    39See NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

    40 79 FR 55920, 55947 (September 17, 2014).

    D. Non-Interference With Applicable Requirements

    The CAA requires that any revision to an implementation plan shall not be approved by the Administrator if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.41

    41 CAA Section 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). In this instance EPA is proposing to promulgate a revision to a FIP, rather than to approve a revision to a SIP. Although 110(l) on its face applies only to EPA approvals of plan revisions, we have nonetheless considered whether this proposed action would interfere with the requirements of the CAA.

    EPA has promulgated health-based standards, known as the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), for seven pollutants, including NO2, a component of NOX, and pollutants such as ozone and particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), that are formed in the atmosphere from reactions between NOX and other pollutants. Using a process that considers air quality data and other factors, EPA designates areas as “nonattainment” if those areas violate a NAAQS or cause or contribute to violations of a NAAQS in a nearby area. Reasonable further progress, as defined in section 171 of the CAA, is related to attainment and means “such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant . . . for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable [NAAQS].” Coronado is located in Apache County, Arizona, which is designated as Unclassifiable/Attainment for all of the NAAQS. Therefore, we propose to find that a revision to the BART emission limits for NOX will not interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress for any air quality standard.

    The other requirements of the CAA that are applicable to Coronado are:

    • Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, 40 CFR part 60, subpart D;

    • National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU;

    • Compliance Assurance Monitoring, 40 CFR part 64;

    • BART and other visibility protection requirements under CAA sections 110(a)(2)(J) and 169A and 40 CFR part 51, subpart P; and

    • Interstate transport visibility requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

    Today's proposed revisions would not affect the applicable requirements of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, or Compliance Assurance Monitoring requirements. Therefore, we propose to find that these revisions would not interfere with these requirements.

    The proposed revisions would alter the specific emission limits that constitute BART for NOX at Coronado under CAA section 169A and 40 CFR 51.308(e). However, we expect the effect of the proposed changes on visibility will be very small. In particular, we note that, under the BART Guidelines, the “degree of visibility improvement” expected to result from BART is evaluated through modeling of the highest emission rate observed on a 24-hour average.42 Although today's rule would raise the emission rate allowed on a 30-day rolling average, we do not expect that it would alter the rate on a 24-hour basis. First, the 24-hour maximum emission rate used in visibility modeling corresponds to operation of the SCR during periods of full load, steady state operation. As noted previously, the BART limits proposed in today's rule are still consistent with the application of SCR. In addition, the underlying assumptions regarding SCR emission rate and performance remain unchanged from the December 5, 2012, final rule. Second, the adjustments to the rolling 30-day emission limit were made to accommodate periods of startup and shutdown. Specifically, BART limits for EGUs are established based on a 30-day rolling average and must be met on a continuous basis, including during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.43 As described previously, the SCR system requires a certain minimum temperature in order to operate properly. As a result, there will necessarily be certain periods of time during startup and shutdown in which the SCR system is not technologically capable of operating. This does not alter any of the assumptions regarding the SCR system when it is in operation, such as the maximum 24-hour emission rate, which is the basis of the visibility modeling. Moreover, the BART Guidelines recommend that periods of startup and shutdown be excluded from the visibility modeling.44 Therefore, the degree of visibility improvement would not be significantly diminished.

    42 BART Guidelines 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, section IV.D.5.

    43 See CAA section 302(k).

    44 Id. section III.A.3 (recommending that “emissions reflecting periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction” not be used for modeling.).

    With respect to the CAA's reasonable progress requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) and 169A, we note that in a September 3, 2014, final rule, we set reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for Arizona that accounted for the emission reductions projected to result from implementation of BART at Coronado (among other sources).45 The revised emission limits we are proposing today will allow for greater total annual NOX emissions than the FIP. We have therefore considered the impact of additional emissions on the RPGs. As summarized in Tables 4 and 5, the difference in NOX emissions between the Arizona RH FIP and today's proposed rule is approximately 233 tons per year (tpy).46 This amount represents less than one percent of the projected total NOX emission reductions in the FIP. Therefore, we consider its potential impact on the RPGs to be de minimis.

    45 79 FR 52420, 52468-52469.

    46 This value assumes that the units will fully operate at the allowed emission rates in Table 4 and 5 for every month of the year. Given that the 30-BOD limits are based on conditions that occur infrequently (i.e., low-load cycling, 3 cold startup/shutdowns), during many periods the units can be expected to operate at a lower emission rate. As a result, this value represents a conservative (i.e., tending to overestimate rather than underestimate in this context) estimate of the difference in NOX emissions.

    Finally, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that all SIPs contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with other states' required measures to protect visibility. In our final rule of September 3, 2014, we determined that control measures in the Arizona RH SIP and FIP were sufficient to fulfill this requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.47 As noted above, while today's proposal would allow for an increase in emissions of 233 tpy compared to the FIP, this represents less than one percent of the projected total NOX emission reductions in the FIP. Accordingly, we propose to determine that this change would not alter our determination that the control measures in the Arizona RH SIP and FIP are adequate to prevent Arizona's emissions from interfering with other states' required measures to protect visibility. Thus, we propose to find that today's proposed revisions would not interfere with any applicable requirement of the CAA.

    47 79 FR 52426.

    Table 4—Coronado SCR Emission Rate Allowed Under 2012 EPA FIP Unit No. Heat duty 1 (MMBtu/hr) NOX emission limit 2 (lb/MMBtu) Capacity factor 1 NOX (lb/hr) (tpy) Coronado 1 4316 0.065 0.84 280.54 2,042 Coronado 2 3984 0.89 258.96 1 Supplemental Cost Analysis 2012-11-15. 2 Emission limit per FIP final rule, 77 FR 72578. Table 5—Coronado SCR Emission Rate Allowed Under Proposed 2015 EPA FIP Revision Unit No. Heat duty 1 (MMBtu/yr) NOX emission limit (lb/MMBtu) Capacity factor 1 NOX (lb/hr) (tpy) Coronado 1 4316 0.065 0.84 280.54 2,275 Coronado 2 3984 0.080 0.89 318.72 1 Supplemental Cost Analysis 2012-11-15. IV. EPA's Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to revise the Arizona RH FIP to replace a plant-wide BART compliance method and emission limit for NOX on Units 1 and 2 at Coronado with a single-unit compliance method and emission limit on each of the units. As described in today's action, we are proposing an emission limit of 0.065 lb/MMBtu for Unit 1 and 0.080 lb/MMBtu for Unit 2 with compliance based on a rolling 30-BOD basis. This revision would constitute our action on SRP's petition for reconsideration of the FIP. We also are proposing to remove the affirmative defense for malfunctions in the FIP and revise the work practice requirement that applies to Coronado.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This rule applies to only two facilities and is therefore not a rule of general applicability.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This rule applies to only two facilities. Therefore, its recordkeeping and reporting provisions do not constitute a “collection of information” as defined under 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c).

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Firms primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale are small if, including affiliates, the total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours. Each of the owners of facilities affected by this rule, SRP, Arizona Public Service and PacifiCorp, exceeds this threshold.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on any 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

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

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. EPA is not proposing to revise any technical standards or impose any new technical standards in this action.

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

    EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. We expect that Coronado will install the same control technology in order to meet the revised emission limits as would have been necessary to meet the previously finalized limits. As shown in Tables 4 and 5 above, the difference in NOX emissions between the final EPA FIP and today's proposed rule is approximately 233 tons per year (tpy). Although this is a not a trivial amount of emissions, it is relatively small compared to the facility's total emissions. In particular, 233 tpy is equivalent to about 3 percent of the 7,300 tpy of NOX that the facility is presently allowed to emit under the Coronado Consent Decree.48 Furthermore, as shown in Table 5, if today's proposal is finalized, total NOX emissions from the facility would be roughly 2,275 tpy, a decrease of over 5,000 tpy compared to the plant-wide cap under the Consent Decree. Thus, although today's proposed revision will allow for a marginal increase in emissions compared to the FIP, it will still ensure a significant reduction in emissions compared to present levels.

    48 Coronado Consent Decree, paragraph 44.

    K. Determination Under Section 307(d)

    Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), EPA proposes to determine that this action is subject to the requirements of CAA section 307(d), as it revises a FIP under CAA section 110(c).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Visibility.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 13, 2015. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 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 D—Arizona 2. In § 52.145, revise paragraphs (f)(3)(i), (f)(5)(ii)(A) and (B), and (f)(10) and remove paragraph (f)(11) to read as follows:
    § 52.145 Visibility protection.

    (f) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (i) NO X emission limitations. The owner/operator of each coal-fired unit subject to this paragraph (f) shall not emit or cause to be emitted NOX in excess of the following limitations, in pounds per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) from any coal fired unit or group of coal-fired units. Each emission limit shall be based on a rolling 30-boiler-operating-day average, unless otherwise indicated in specific paragraphs.

    Coal fired unit or group of
  • coal-fired units
  • Federal
  • emission
  • limitation
  • Cholla Power Plant Units 2, 3, and 4 0.055 Coronado Generating Station Unit 1 0.065 Coronado Generating Station Unit 2 0.080

    (5) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (A) Cholla Power Plant. The 30-day rolling average NOX emission rate for the group of coal-fired units identified as Cholla Power Plant, Units 2, 3, and 4 shall be calculated for each calendar day, even if a unit is not in operation on that calendar day, in accordance with the following procedure: Step one, for each unit, sum the hourly pounds of NOX emitted during the current boiler-operating day (or most recent boiler-operating day if the unit is not in operation), and the preceding twenty-nine (29) boiler-operating days, to calculate the total pounds of NOX emitted over the most recent thirty (30) boiler-operating day period for each coal-fired unit; step two, for each unit, sum the hourly heat input, in MMBtu, during the current boiler-operating day (or most recent boiler-operating day if the unit is not in operation), and the preceding twenty-nine (29) boiler-operating days, to calculate the total heat input, in MMBtu, over the most recent thirty (30) boiler-operating day period for each coal-fired unit; step 3, sum together the total pounds of NOX emitted from the group of coal-fired units over each unit's most recent thirty (30) boiler-operating day period (the most recent 30 boiler-operating day periods for different units may be different); step four, sum together the total heat input from the group of coal-fired units over each unit's most recent thirty (30) boiler-operating day period; and step five, divide the total pounds of NOX emitted from step three by the total heat input from step four for each group of coal-fired units, to calculate the 30-day rolling average NOX emission rate for each group of coal-fired units, in pounds of NOX per MMBtu, for each calendar day. Each 30-day rolling average NOX emission rate shall include all emissions and all heat input that occur during all periods within any boiler-operating day, including emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

    (B) Coronado Generating Station. Compliance with the NOX emission limits for Coronado Unit 1 and Coronado Unit 2 in paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this section shall be determined on a rolling 30 boiler-operating-day basis. The 30-boiler-operating-day rolling NOX emission rate for each unit shall be calculated in accordance with the following procedure: Step one, sum the total pounds of NOX emitted from the unit during the current boiler operating day and the previous twenty-nine (29) boiler operating days; Step two, sum the total heat input to the unit in MMBtu during the current boiler operating day and the previous twenty-nine (29) boiler operating days; Step three, divide the total number of pounds of NOX emitted from that unit during the thirty (30) boiler operating days by the total heat input to the unit during the thirty (30) boiler operating days. A new 30-boiler-operating-day rolling average NOX emission rate shall be calculated for each new boiler operating day. Each 30-boiler-operating-day average NOX emission rate shall include all emissions that occur during all periods within any boiler operating day, including emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

    (10) Equipment operations.—(i) Cholla Power Plant. At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the owner or operator of Cholla Power Plant Units 2, 3 and 4 shall, to the extent practicable, maintain and operate each unit including associated air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Pollution control equipment shall be designed and capable of operating properly to minimize emissions during all expected operating conditions. Determination of whether acceptable operating and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available to the Regional Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operating and maintenance procedures, and inspection of each unit.

    (ii) Coronado Generating Station. At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the owner or operator of Coronado Generating Station Unit 1 and Unit 2 shall, to the extent practicable, maintain and operate each unit in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The owner or operator shall continuously operate pollution control equipment at all times the unit it serves is in operation, and operate pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with technological limitations, manufacturer's specifications, and good engineering and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether acceptable operating and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available to the Regional Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operating and maintenance procedures, and inspection of each unit.

    [FR Doc. 2015-07233 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 141 [FRL-9925-49-OW] Notice of a Public Meeting: Regulations Implementing Section 1417 of the Safe Drinking Water Act: Prohibition on Use of Lead Pipes, Solder and Flux AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces a public meeting and webinar to obtain input on potential revisions to regulations for the Prohibition on Use of Lead Pipes, Solder and Flux. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) prohibits the use or introduction into commerce of pipes, pipe or plumbing fittings or fixtures, solder and flux that are not lead free. These revisions are necessary due to SDWA amendments enacted by Congress in the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act of 2011 and the Community Fire Safety Act of 2013.

    DATES:

    The public meeting will be held on April 14, 2015 (1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., eastern time). This meeting will also be simultaneously broadcast as a webinar, available on the Internet. Persons wishing to participate in the meeting or webinar must pre-register by April 7, 2015, as described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    More information is available at the following EPA Web site: http://water.epa.gov/drink/info/lead/index.cfm. For questions about this meeting, contact Brian D'Amico, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; telephone (202) 566-1069 or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    To participate in the webinar, you must pre-register by April 7, 2015, at https://leadprohibitionreg.eventbrite.com. If you would like to attend in person, please contact Brian D'Amico at (202) 566-1069 or [email protected] before or by April 7, 2015. The seating for the public meeting and the number of connections available for the webinar are limited and will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. During the meeting and webinar, there will be a time period available for public comments. EPA encourages public input and will allocate time to receive verbal statements on a first-come, first-served basis. Participants will be provided with a set time frame for their statements. 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 Brian D'Amico no later than April 7, 2015.

    How can I get a copy of the meeting/webinar materials? The meeting materials will provided for those attending the meeting/webinar. EPA will post the materials on the Agency's Web site for persons who are unable to attend the meeting. Please note, the posting of these materials could occur after the meeting.

    Special Accommodations: To request special accommodations for individuals with disabilities, please contact Brian D'Amico at (202) 566-1069, or by email to [email protected], at least five business days prior to the meeting to allow time to process your request.

    Dated: March 24, 2015. Rebecca M. Clark, Acting Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07375 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 271 [EPA-R05-RCRA-2014-0689; FRL-9925-55-Region 5] Michigan: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Michigan has applied to EPA for final authorization of the revisions to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has reviewed Michigan's application with regards to federal requirements and is proposing to authorize the State's program revisions.

    DATES:

    Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-RCRA-2014-0689, by one of the following methods:

    Web site: www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected]

    Mail: Judith Greenberg, Michigan Regulatory Specialist, RCRA/TSCA Programs Section, RCRA Branch, Land and Chemicals Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, LR-8J, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-R05-RCRA-2014-0689. 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 CD-ROM or other electronic media 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 or any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epagov/epahome/dockets/.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some of the information is not publicly available; e.g., CBI or other information for which 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. You may view and copy Michigan's application from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the following addresses: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, contact: Judith Greenberg, telephone (312) 886-4179; or Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Constitution Hall, 525 West Allegan Street, Lansing, Michigan, contact: Ronda Blayer, telephone (517) 284-6555.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Judith Greenberg, Michigan Regulatory Specialist, RCRA/TSCA Programs Section, RCRA Branch, Land and Chemicals Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, LR-8J, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Judith Greenberg can be reached by telephone at (312) 886-4179 or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Why are revisions to state programs necessary?

    States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the federal program. As the federal program changes, states must change their programs and request EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to state programs may be necessary when federal or state statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, states must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

    B. What decisions have we made in this rule?

    We have made a tentative decision that Michigan's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we propose to grant Michigan final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the revisions described in the authorization application. Michigan will have responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (except in Indian Country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its program revision application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized states before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Michigan, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.

    C. What is the effect of this authorization decision?

    The effect of this tentative decision, once finalized, is that a facility in Michigan subject to RCRA would have to comply with the authorized state requirements instead of the equivalent federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Michigan has enforcement responsibilities under its state hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include among others, authority to:

    1. Perform inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports;

    2. Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits; and

    3. Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions.

    This action will not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Michigan will be authorized are already effective, and will not be changed by EPA's final action.

    D. What happens if EPA receives adverse comments on this action?

    If EPA receives adverse comments on this authorization, we will address all public comments in a later Federal Register. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization, you must do so at this time.

    E. What has Michigan previously been authorized for?

    Michigan initially received final authorization on October 16, 1986, effective October 30, 1986 (51 FR 36804-36805), to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. We granted authorization for changes to Michigan's program on November 24, 1989, effective January 23, 1990 (54 FR 48608); on January 24, 1991, effective June 24, 1991 (56 FR 18517); on October 1, 1993, effective November 30, 1993 (58 FR 51244); on January 13, 1995, effective January 13, 1995 (60 FR 3095); on February 8, 1996, effective April 8, 1996 (61 FR 4742); on November 14, 1997, effective November 14, 1997 (62 FR 61775); on March 2, 1999, effective June 1, 1999 (64 FR 10111); on July 31, 2002, effective July 31, 2002 (67 FR 49617); on March 9, 2006, effective March 9, 2006 (71 FR 12141); on January 7, 2008 (73 FR 1077), effective January 7, 2008; and on March 2, 2010, effective March 2, 2010 (75 FR 9345).

    F. What changes are we proposing with today's action?

    On June 9, 2014, Michigan submitted its final application seeking authorization of hazardous waste program revisions in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We have determined, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Michigan's program revisions satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, we propose to grant Michigan final authorization for the following program changes:

    Description of federal requirement and revision checklist number 1 Federal Register date and page (and/or RCRA
  • statutory authority)
  • Analogous state authority
    NESHAP: Final Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Phase I Final Replacement Standards and Phase II) Amendments, Checklist 217 April 8, 2008, 73 FR 18970 R 299.9623, effective November 5, 2013. F019 Exemption for Wastewater Treatment Sludges from Auto Manufacturing Zinc Phosphating Processes, Checklist 218 June 4, 2008, 73 FR 31756 R 299.9220, R 299.9307(6) and (7), effective November 5, 2013. Academic Laboratories Generator Standards, Checklist 220 December 1, 2008, 73 FR 72912 R 299.9205(5)(j), R 299.9301(9), R 299.9313 and R 299.11003(1)(k) and (2), effective November 5, 2013. OECD Requirements: Export Shipments of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries, Checklist 222 January 8, 2010, 75 FR 1236 R 299.9601(2)(c), (3) and (9), effective December 16, 2004.
  • R 299.9401(5), effective March 17, 2008.
  • R 299.9301(7), R 299.9309(1), (3) and (4), R 299.9312(1) and (2), R 299.9605(1) and (4), R 299.9608(1), (4) and (8), R 299.9804(7) and (8), and R 299.11003(1)(k), (m), (n) and (p) and (2), effective November 5, 2013.
  • Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications Rule, as amended, Checklist 223 March 16, 2010, 75 FR 12989; and June 4, 2010, 75 FR 31716 R 299.9302(2), effective June 21, 1994.
  • R 299.9209(7), R 299.9311, R 299.9413 and R 299.9803(4), effective September 11, 2000.
  • R 299.9619(1) and (8), R 299.9627 and R 299.9635(5) and (12), effective December 16, 2004.
  • R 299.9222, R 299.9310(2) and R 299.9404(1)(b), effective March 17, 2008. R 299.9105(l), R 299.9106(t), R 299.9202(2)(c), R 299.9204(1)(v)(vi), R 299.9205(1)(b), (1)(b)(ii), (2), (3)(a) and (b), R 299.9206(1)(b) and (d), (2), (2)(b) and (3), R 299.9207(1), (2), (3) and (5), R 299.9212(3)(h), R 299.9213(2) and (3), R 299.9220, R 299.9225, R 299.9304(1)(b), (2)(d) and (6), R 299.9306(1) and (1)(b) and (d), (2), (3), (3)(b), (4)(c), (6) and (7), R 299.9308(1), (3) and (6), R 299.9503(1)(c), R 299.9516(5), R 299.9607(1) and (4), R 299.9608(3), (6) and (8), R 299.9801(3) and (7), R 299.9804(3), R 299.9808(3)(c), (7) and (8), R 299.11003(1)(j), (k), (m), (n) and (u) and (2), effective November 5, 2013. Removal of Saccharin and Its Salts, Checklist 225 December 17, 2010, 75 FR 78918 R 299.9311, R 299.9413, effective September 11, 2000.
  • R 299.9627, effective December 16, 2004.
  • R 299.11003(1)(n) and (2), effective November 5, 2013.
  • Corrections to the Academic Generator Standards, Checklist 226 December 20, 2010, 75 FR 79304 R 299.9313(2) and (3), R 299.11003(1)(k) and (2), effective November 5, 2013. Revisions of the Treatment Standards for Carbamate Wastes, Checklist 227 June 13, 2011, 75 FR 34147 R 299.9311 and R 299.9413, effective September 11, 2000.
  • R 299.9627, effective September 11, 2004.
  • R 299.11003(1)(u) and (2), effective November 5, 2013. Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications, Checklist 228 April 13, 2012, 77 FR 22229 R 299.9222, effective March 17, 2008.
  • R 299.9801(3), effective November 5, 2013.
  • 1 Revision Checklists generally reflect changes to federal regulations pursuant to a particular Federal Register notice; EPA publishes these checklists as aids to states to use for development of their authorization revision application. See EPA's RCRA State Authorization Web site at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/laws-regs/state/index.htm.
    Equivalent State-Initiated Changes Michigan administrative rules Effective date of amended State
  • requirement
  • R 299.9102 (definition of “construction permit” removed), R 299.9106(e) (definition of “operating license” modified), R 299.9224, R 299.9225, R 299.9304(2)(b), R 299.9409(4), R 299.9501 (except second sentence only of paragraph (3)(d)), R 299.9505, R 299.9524, R 299.9603, R 299.9604(2), R 299.9605, R 299.9609, R 299.9610(3), R 299.9612, R 299.9615, R 299.9616, R 299.9623, R 299.9629, R 299.9640, R 299.9707, R 299.9708, R 299.9808, and R 299.9821 November 5, 2013.
    G. Which revised state rules are different from the federal rules?

    The most significant differences between the state rules we are proposing to authorize and federal rules are summarized below. It should be noted that this summary does not describe every difference or every detail regarding the differences that are described. Members of the regulated community are advised to read the complete rules to ensure that they understand the requirements with which they will need to comply.

    There are aspects of the Michigan program which are more stringent than the federal program. All of these more stringent requirements are or will become part of the federally enforceable RCRA program when authorized by the EPA, and must be complied with in addition to the state requirements which track the minimum federal requirements. These more stringent requirements are found at (references are to the Michigan Administrative Code):

    Michigan does not allow containment buildings, making the state requirements more stringent than the federal requirements at 40 CFR 262.10(f), (k)(1) and (k); 262.11(d); 262.41(b); 263.12; 40 CFR part 264 subpart DD; 40 CFR 265 subpart DD; and 40 CFR part 264 appendix I, Tables 1 and 2.

    Michigan's rules at R 299.9220 are more stringent than the federal analog at 40 CFR 261.31 since the State's listing of F019 includes recordkeeping requirements as a condition of the exemption of wastewater treatment sludge generated from zinc phosphating, when zinc phosphating is used in the automobile assembly process, while the federal analog at 40 CFR 261.31 has separate recordkeeping requirements for generators claiming the exemption, rather than having the recordkeeping requirements as a condition of the exemption.

    Michigan's rules at R 299.9601(1), (2), (2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i); R 299.9608(1), (6) and (8); R 299.9615; and R 299.9702(1) are more stringent than the federal analogs at 40 CFR 265.56(b), 265.71, 265.72, 265.142(a), 265.174, 265.190(a), 265.193, 265.194, 265.197, 265.201, and 265.340(b)(1) since the State rules include provisions that require compliance with standards equivalent to 40 CFR part 264 rather than 40 CFR part 265.

    Michigan's rules at R 299.9601(2)(a) and R 299.9602 are more stringent since the rules impose requirements regarding environmental and human health standards generally.

    Michigan's rules at R 299.9615(4) are more stringent since the State rules require tank systems to comply with Michigan 1941 Act 207 standards (which govern above-ground storage tanks).

    Michigan's rules at R 299.9623(9) are more stringent since the State rules require incinerators to comply with Michigan Part 55 standards (which address air pollution).

    Michigan's rules at R 299.9629(7)-(7)(c) are more stringent since the State rules require timely notification of an exceedance of a groundwater surface water interface standard based on acute toxicity and established pursuant to part 201 and part 31 of act 451 and implementation of interim measures to prevent exceedance at the monitoring wells along with a proposal and schedule for completing corrective action to prevent a discharge that exceeds the standard.

    Michigan's rules at R 299.11002(1) and (2) are more stringent than the federal analogs at 40 CFR 260.11(d) and (d)(1) since the State adopts updated versions of the “Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code.”

    There are also aspects of Michigan's revised program which are broader in scope than the federal program. State provisions that EPA determines are broader in scope are not part of the federally authorized program and are not federally enforceable. Michigan's program revisions include the following rules that are broader in scope than the federal program (references are to the Michigan Administrative Code):

    R 299.9226, R 299.9501(3)(d) (second sentence only) and R 299.9507, as amended effective November 5, 2013.

    The following Michigan administrative rules that were broader in scope than the federal program were rescinded effective November 5, 2013 (references are to the Michigan Administrative Code):

    R 299.9221 (Table 203b), R 299.9223 (Table 204b), R 299.9904, R 299.9905, R 299.9906, and R 299.11101, R 299.11102, R 299.11103, R 299.11104, R 299.11105, R 299.11106, and R 299.11107.

    H. Who handles permits after final authorization takes effect?

    Michigan will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which EPA issued prior to the effective date of the proposed authorization until they expire or are terminated. We will not issue any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table above after the effective date of the authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Michigan is not yet authorized.

    I. How does today's action affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in Michigan?

    Michigan is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in Indian Country within the State, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. This includes:

    1. All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations within the State of Michigan;

    2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and

    3. Any other land, whether on or off an Indian reservation that qualifies as Indian Country.

    Therefore, authorizing Michigan for these revisions would not affect Indian Country in Michigan. EPA would continue to implement and administer the RCRA program in Indian Country. It is EPA's long-standing position that the term “Indian lands” used in past Michigan hazardous waste approvals is synonymous with the term “Indian Country.” Washington Dep't of Ecology v. U.S. EPA, 752 F.2d 1465, 1467, n.1 (9th Cir. 1985). See 40 CFR 144.3 and 258.2.

    J. What is codification and is EPA codifying Michigan's hazardous waste program as authorized in this rule?

    Codification is the process of placing a state's statutes and regulations that comprise a state's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. We do this by referencing the authorized state rules in 40 CFR part 272. Michigan's rules, up to and including those revised October 19, 1991, have previously been codified through incorporation-by-reference effective April 24, 1989 (54 FR 7421, February 21, 1989); as amended effective March 31, 1992 (57 FR 3724, January 31, 1992). We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart X, for the codification of Michigan's program changes until a later date.

    K. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This proposed rule only authorizes hazardous waste requirements pursuant to RCRA 3006 and imposes no requirements other than those imposed by state law (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, Section A. Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary?). Therefore, this rule complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:

    1. Executive Order 18266: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from its review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821 January 21, 2011).

    2. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule authorizes state requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those required by state law. Accordingly, I certify 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.).

    4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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).

    5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) does not apply to this rule because it will not have federalism implications (i.e., 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).

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

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) does not apply to this rule because it will not have tribal implications (i.e., substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, or 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).

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and because the EPA does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

    8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866.

    9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    EPA approves state programs as long as they meet criteria required by RCRA, so it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, in its review of a state program, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that meets the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply to this rule.

    10. Executive Order 12988

    As required by Section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.

    11. Executive Order 12630: Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings

    EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 18, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings issued under the executive order.

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

    Because this rule proposes authorization of pre-existing state rules and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection; Administrative practice and procedure; Confidential business information; Hazardous materials transportation; Hazardous waste; Indians-lands; Intergovernmental relations; Penalties; Reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:

    This action is issued under the authority of Sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: January 15, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07347 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    80 61 Tuesday, March 31, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Institute of Food and Agriculture Notice of Intent To Request Approval To Establish a New Information Collection AGENCY:

    National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, that implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA) intention to request approval to establish a new information collection for the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program.

    DATES:

    Written comments on this notice must be received by June 4, 2015, to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Email: [email protected]; Fax: 202-720-0857; Mail: Office of Information Technology (OIT), NIFA, USDA, STOP 2216, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-2216.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Martin, Records Officer; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program.

    OMB Number: 0524—New.

    Type of Request: Intent to request approval to establish a new information collection for three years.

    Abstract: The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program at United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) makes competitively awarded grants to qualified small businesses to support high quality, advanced concepts research related to important scientific problems and opportunities in agriculture that could lead to significant public benefit if successful.

    The USDA SBIR Program Office proposes to contact Phase II awardees to determine their success in achieving commercial application of a market ready technology that was funded under the USDA SBIR Program. The survey would collect information from Phase II companies that received funding during the years of 1994 to 2014.

    Data from the survey will be used to provide information that currently does not exist. The data will be used internally by the USDA SBIR Office to identify past and current activities of Phase II grantees in the areas of technology development, commercialization success, product development or services, and factors that may have prevented the technology from entering into the market place. Depending on the results of the survey, information from the survey will be used to highlight commercialization successes within the small business community; improve and refine program interactions with, and responsiveness to, the small business community; potentially refocus the strategies that are used to accomplish SBIR objectives for commercialization; and identify areas in need of improvement and enhancement. This survey will not be used to formulate or change policies. Rather, it will be used to enable the USDA SBIR Office to be responsive to its constituents and document successes within the USDA SBIR Program.

    The objectives of the SBIR Program are to: Stimulate technological innovations in the private sector; strengthen the role of small businesses in meeting Federal research and development needs; increase private sector commercialization of innovations derived from USDA-supported research and development efforts; and foster and encourage participation by women-owned and socially and economically disadvantaged small business firms in technological innovations.

    The USDA SBIR program is carried out in three separate phases:

    1. Phase I awards to determine, insofar as possible, the scientific and technical merit and feasibility of ideas that appear to have commercial potential.

    2. Phase II awards to further develop work from Phase I that meets particular program needs and exhibits potential for commercial application.

    3. Phase III awards where commercial applications of SBIR-funded Research/Research and Development (R/R&D) are funded by non-Federal sources of capital; or where products, services or further research intended for use by the Federal Government are funded by follow-on non-SBIR Federal Funding Agreements.

    The USDA SBIR Program is administered by NIFA of the USDA. NIFA exercises overall oversight for the policies and procedures governing SBIR grants awarded to the U.S. small business community, representing approximately 2.5% to 2.8% of the USDA extramural R/R&D budget. This represents approximately $201M in Phase II grants awarded to the U.S. small business community from 1994 to 2014.

    Plan

    A total of 499 USDA SBIR Phase II grants were awarded to small businesses between 1994 and 2014, and the USDA SBIR Program plans to contact past Phase II awardees to determine their success in achieving commercial application of a market ready technology under Phase III.

    The survey will be administered through a USDA led contract where a contractor will perform an initial web based survey administered through a secure Internet link with a telephone interview and/or in person interview as a follow-up with SBIR Phase II grantees. Both the web based survey and telephone/in person interviews will consist of a series of questions that relate to the commercial status of the technology developed with USDA SBIR Phase II funding as well as general questions regarding the USDA SBIR Program. The USDA SBIR Program office will coordinate the initial contact with the Phase II companies in an effort to introduce the scope of the survey, provide straightforward instructions and facilitate the survey work that the contractor will initiate and complete. Phase II companies that do not respond within two weeks to the initial contact from the USDA SBIR Program Office will be sent a second request by email or by phone to respond. It is envisioned that the contractor would then conduct the web based survey and interviews thereafter.

    Estimate of Burden: NIFA used burden estimates administered through contractor led web based survey to estimate the burden for SBIR, but anticipates the transactions for project initiation may be reduced because grant application information will be used to prepopulate many fields. The total annual burden for the SBIR Program collection is 2500 hours.

    Types of respondents Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of response Average time per response hours Annual burden hours
  • requested
  • USDA SBIR Phase II Grantees 500 1 5 2500

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

    Obtaining a Copy of the Information Collection: A copy of the information collection and related instructions may be obtained free of charge by contacting Robert Martin as directed above.

    Done at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of March, 2015. Catherine E. Woteki, Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07373 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Child Nutrition Programs—Income Eligibility Guidelines AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the Department's annual adjustments to the Income Eligibility Guidelines to be used in determining eligibility for free and reduced price meals and free milk for the period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. These guidelines are used by schools, institutions, and facilities participating in the National School Lunch Program (and Commodity School Program), School Breakfast Program, Special Milk Program for Children, Child and Adult Care Food Program, and Summer Food Service Program. The annual adjustments are required by section 9 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. The guidelines are intended to direct benefits to those children most in need and are revised annually to account for changes in the Consumer Price Index.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 1, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vivian Lees, Branch Chief, Operational Support Branch, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, or by phone at (703) 305-2322.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act.

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), no recordkeeping or reporting requirements have been included that are subject to approval from the Office of Management and Budget.

    This notice has been determined to be not significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in conformance with Executive Order 12866.

    The affected programs are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.553, No. 10.555, No. 10.556, No. 10.558 and No. 10.559 and are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR 415.3-415.6).

    Background

    Pursuant to sections 9(b)(1) and 17(c)(4) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 1766(c)(4)), and sections 3(a)(6) and 4(e)(1)(A) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1772(a)(6) and 1773(e)(1)(A)), the Department annually issues the Income Eligibility Guidelines for free and reduced price meals for the National School Lunch Program (7 CFR part 210), the Commodity School Program (7 CFR part 210), School Breakfast Program (7 CFR part 220), Summer Food Service Program (7 CFR part 225) and Child and Adult Care Food Program (7 CFR part 226) and the guidelines for free milk in the Special Milk Program for Children (7 CFR part 215). These eligibility guidelines are based on the Federal income poverty guidelines and are stated by household size. The guidelines are used to determine eligibility for free and reduced price meals and free milk in accordance with applicable program rules.

    Definition of Income

    In accordance with the Department's policy as provided in the Food and Nutrition Service publication Eligibility Manual for School Meals, “income,” as the term is used in this notice, means income before any deductions such as income taxes, Social Security taxes, insurance premiums, charitable contributions and bonds. It includes the following: (1) Monetary compensation for services, including wages, salary, commissions or fees; (2) net income from nonfarm self-employment; (3) net income from farm self-employment; (4) Social Security; (5) dividends or interest on savings or bonds or income from estates or trusts; (6) net rental income; (7) public assistance or welfare payments; (8) unemployment compensation; (9) government civilian employee or military retirement, or pensions or veterans payments; (10) private pensions or annuities; (11) alimony or child support payments; (12) regular contributions from persons not living in the household; (13) net royalties; and (14) other cash income. Other cash income would include cash amounts received or withdrawn from any source including savings, investments, trust accounts and other resources that would be available to pay the price of a child's meal.

    “Income,” as the term is used in this notice, does not include any income or benefits received under any Federal programs that are excluded from consideration as income by any statutory prohibition. Furthermore, the value of meals or milk to children shall not be considered as income to their households for other benefit programs in accordance with the prohibitions in section 12(e) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and section 11(b) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1760(e) and 1780(b)).

    The Income Eligibility Guidelines

    The following are the Income Eligibility Guidelines to be effective from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. The Department's guidelines for free meals and milk and reduced price meals were obtained by multiplying the year 2015 Federal income poverty guidelines by 1.30 and 1.85, respectively, and by rounding the result upward to the next whole dollar.

    This notice displays only the annual Federal poverty guidelines issued by the Department of Health and Human Services because the monthly and weekly Federal poverty guidelines are not used to determine the Income Eligibility Guidelines. The chart details the free and reduced price eligibility criteria for monthly income, income received twice monthly (24 payments per year), income received every two weeks (26 payments per year) and weekly income.

    Income calculations are made based on the following formulas: Monthly income is calculated by dividing the annual income by 12; twice monthly income is computed by dividing annual income by 24; income received every two weeks is calculated by dividing annual income by 26; and weekly income is computed by dividing annual income by 52. All numbers are rounded upward to the next whole dollar. The numbers reflected in this notice for a family of four in the 48 contiguous States, the District of Columbia, Guam and the territories represent an increase of 1.7 percent over last year's level for a family of the same size. The income eligibility guidelines table follows below.

    Income Eligibility Guidelines [Effective from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016] Household size Federal poverty guidelines Annual Reduced price meals—185% Annual Monthly Twice per month Every two weeks Weekly Free meals—130% Annual Monthly Twice per month Every two weeks Weekly 48 Contiguous States, District of Columbia, Guam and Territories 1 11,770 21,775 1,815 908 838 419 15,301 1,276 638 589 295 2 15,930 29,471 2,456 1,228 1,134 567 20,709 1,726 863 797 399 3 20,090 37,167 3,098 1,549 1,430 715 26,117 2,177 1,089 1,005 503 4 24,250 44,863 3,739 1,870 1,726 863 31,525 2,628 1,314 1,213 607 5 28,410 52,559 4,380 2,190 2,022 1,011 36,933 3,078 1,539 1,421 711 6 32,570 60,255 5,022 2,511 2,318 1,159 42,341 3,529 1,765 1,629 815 7 36,730 67,951 5,663 2,832 2,614 1,307 47,749 3,980 1,990 1,837 919 8 40,890 75,647 6,304 3,152 2,910 1,455 53,157 4,430 2,215 2,045 1,023 For each additional family member add 4,160 7,696 642 321 296 148 5,408 451 226 208 104 Alaska 1 14,720 27,232 2,270 1,135 1,048 524 19,136 1,595 798 736 368 2 19,920 36,852 3,071 1,536 1,418 709 25,896 2,158 1,079 996 498 3 25,120 46,472 3,873 1,937 1,788 894 32,656 2,722 1,361 1,256 628 4 30,320 56,092 4,675 2,338 2,158 1,079 39,416 3,285 1,643 1,516 758 5 35,520 65,712 5,476 2,738 2,528 1,264 46,176 3,848 1,924 1,776 888 6 40,720 75,332 6,278 3,139 2,898 1,449 52,936 4,412 2,206 2,036 1,018 7 45,920 84,952 7,080 3,540 3,268 1,634 59,696 4,975 2,488 2,296 1,148 8 51,120 94,572 7,881 3,941 3,638 1,819 66,456 5,538 2,769 2,556 1,278 For each additional family member add 5,200 9,620 802 401 370 185 6,760 564 282 260 130 Hawaii 1 13,550 25,068 2,089 1,045 965 483 17,615 1,468 734 678 339 2 18,330 33,911 2,826 1,413 1,305 653 23,829 1,986 993 917 459 3 23,110 42,754 3,563 1,782 1,645 823 30,043 2,504 1,252 1,156 578 4 27,890 51,597 4,300 2,150 1,985 993 36,257 3,022 1,511 1,395 698 5 32,670 60,440 5,037 2,519 2,325 1,163 42,471 3,540 1,770 1,634 817 6 37,450 69,283 5,774 2,887 2,665 1,333 48,685 4,058 2,029 1,873 937 7 42,230 78,126 6,511 3,256 3,005 1,503 54,899 4,575 2,288 2,112 1,056 8 47,010 86,969 7,248 3,624 3,345 1,673 61,113 5,093 2,547 2,351 1,176 For each additional family member add 4,780 8,843 737 369 341 171 6,214 518 259 239 120 Authority:

    Section 9(b)(1) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(1).

    Date: March 26, 2015. Jeffrey J. Tribiano, Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07358 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC): Income Eligibility Guidelines AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture (“Department”) announces adjusted income eligibility guidelines to be used by State agencies in determining the income eligibility of persons applying to participate in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC). These income eligibility guidelines are to be used in conjunction with the WIC Regulations.

    DATES:

    Effective Date July 1, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Donna Hines, Chief, Policy Branch, Supplemental Food Programs Division, FNS, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, (703) 305-2746.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Executive Order 12866

    This notice is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of this Act.

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This notice does not contain reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507).

    Executive Order 12372

    This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs under No. 10.557, and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials (7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, 48 FR 29100, June 24, 1983, and 49 FR 22675, May 31, 1984).

    Description

    Section 17(d)(2)(A) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1786(d)(2)(A)), requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish income criteria to be used with nutritional risk criteria in determining a person's eligibility for participation in the WIC Program. The law provides that persons will be income-eligible for the WIC Program only if they are members of families that satisfy the income standard prescribed for reduced-price school meals under section 9(b) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)). Under section 9(b), the income limit for reduced-price school meals is 185 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines, as adjusted. Section 9(b) also requires that these guidelines be revised annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. The annual revision for 2015/2016 was published by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) at 80 FR 3236, January 22, 2015. The guidelines published by HHS are referred to as the “poverty guidelines.”

    Section 246.7(d)(1) of the WIC regulations (Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations) specifies that State agencies may prescribe income guidelines either equaling the income guidelines established under section 9 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act for reduced-price school meals, or identical to State or local guidelines for free or reduced-price health care. However, in conforming WIC income guidelines to State or local health care guidelines, the State cannot establish WIC guidelines which exceed the guidelines for reduced-price school meals, or which are less than 100 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines. Consistent with the method used to compute income eligibility guidelines for reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program, the poverty guidelines were multiplied by 1.85 and the results rounded upward to the next whole dollar. At this time, the Department is publishing the maximum and minimum WIC income eligibility guidelines by household size for the period July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016. Consistent with section 17(f)(17) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1786(f)(17)), a State agency may implement the revised WIC income eligibility guidelines concurrently with the implementation of income eligibility guidelines under the Medicaid Program established under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396, et seq.). State agencies may coordinate implementation with the revised Medicaid guidelines, i.e., earlier in the year, but in no case may implementation take place later than July 1, 2015.

    State agencies that do not coordinate implementation with the revised Medicaid guidelines must implement the WIC income eligibility guidelines on July 1, 2015. The first table of this Notice contains the income limits by household size for the 48 contiguous States, the District of Columbia, and all Territories, including Guam.

    Income Eligibility Guidelines [Effective from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016] Household size Federal poverty guidelines—100% Annual Monthly Twice-monthly Bi-weekly Weekly Reduced price meals—185% Annual Monthly Twice-monthly Bi-weekly Weekly 48 Contiguous States, D.C., Guam and Territories 1 $11,770 $981 $491 $453 $227 $21,775 $1,815 $908 $838 $419 2 15,930 1,328 664 613 307 29,471 2,456 1,228 1,134 567 3 20,090 1,675 838 773 387 37,167 3,098 1,549 1,430 715 4 24,250 2,021 1,011 933 467 44,863 3,739 1,870 1,726 863 5 28,410 2,368 1,184 1,093 547 52,559 4,380 2,190 2,022 1,011 6 32,570 2,715 1,358 1,253 627 60,255 5,022 2,511 2,318 1,159 7 36,730 3,061 1,531 1,413 707 67,951 5,663 2,832 2,614 1,307 8 40,890 3,408 1,704 1,573 787 75,647 6,304 3,152 2,910 1,455 Each add'l family member add + $4,160 + $347 + $174 + $160 + $80 + $7,696 + $642 + $321 + $296 + $148 Alaska 1 $14,720 $1,227 $614 $567 $284 $27,232 $2,270 $1,135 $1,048 $524 2 19,920 1,660 830 767 384 36,852 3,071 1,536 1,418 709 3 25,120 2,094 1,047 967 484 46,472 3,873 1,937 1,788 894 4 30,320 2,527 1,264 1,167 584 56,092 4,675 2,338 2,158 1,079 5 35,520 2,960 1,480 1,367 684 65,712 5,476 2,738 2,528 1,264 6 40,720 3,394 1,697 1,567 784 75,332 6,278 3,139 2,898 1,449 7 45,920 3,827 1,914 1,767 884 84,952 7,080 3,540 3,268 1,634 8 51,120 4,260 2,130 1,967 984 94,572 7,881 3,941 3,638 1,819 Each add'l family member add + $5,200 + $434 + $217 + $200 + $100 + $9,620 + $802 + $401 + $370 + $185 Hawaii 1 $13,550 $1,130 $565 $522 $261 $25,068 $2,089 $1,045 $965 $483 2 18,330 1,528 764 705 353 33,911 2,826 1,413 1,305 653 3 23,110 1,926 963 889 445 42,754 3,563 1,782 1,645 823 4 27,890 2,325 1,163 1,073 537 51,597 4,300 2,150 1,985 993 5 32,670 2,723 1,362 1,257 629 60,440 5,037 2,519 2,325 1,163 6 37,450 3,121 1,561 1,441 721 69,283 5,774 2,887 2,665 1,333 7 42,230 3,520 1,760 1,625 813 78,126 6,511 3,256 3,005 1,503 8 47,010 3,918 1,959 1,809 905 86,969 7,248 3,624 3,345 1,673 Each add'l family member add + $4,780 + $399 + $200 + $184 + $92 + $8,843 + $737 + $369 + $341 + $171 Income Eligibility Guidelines—Supplemental Chart for Family Sizes Greater Than Eight [Effective from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016] Household size Federal poverty guidelines—100% Annual Monthly Twice-monthly Bi-weekly Weekly Reduced price meals—185% Annual Monthly Twice-monthly Bi-weekly Weekly 48 Contiguous States, D.C., Guam and Territories 9 $45,050 $3,755 $1,878 $1,733 $867 $83,343 $6,946 $3,473 $3,206 $1,603 10 49,210 4,101 2,051 1,893 947 91,039 7,587 3,794 3,502 1,751 11 53,370 4,448 2,224 2,053 1,027 98,735 8,228 4,114 3,798 1,899 12 57,530 4,795 2,398 2,213 1,107 106,431 8,870 4,435 4,094 2,047 13 61,690 5,141 2,571 2,373 1,187 114,127 9,511 4,756 4,390 2,195 14 65,850 5,488 2,744 2,533 1,267 121,823 10,152 5,076 4,686 2,343 15 70,010 5,835 2,918 2,693 1,347 129,519 10,794 5,397 4,982 2,491 16 74,170 6,181 3,091 2,853 1,427 137,215 11,435 5,718 5,278 2,639 Each add'l family member add + $4,160 + $347 + $174 + $160 + $80 + $7,696 + $642 + $321 + $296 + $148 Alaska 9 $56,320 $4,694 $2,347 $2,167 $1,084 $104,192 $8,683 $4,342 $4,008 $2,004 10 61,520 5,127 2,564 2,367 1,184 113,812 9,485 4,743 4,378 2,189 11 66,720 5,560 2,780 2,567 1,284 123,432 10,286 5,143 4,748 2,374 12 71,920 5,994 2,997 2,767 1,384 133,052 11,088 5,544 5,118 2,559 13 77,120 6,427 3,214 2,967 1,484 142,672 11,890 5,945 5,488 2,744 14 82,320 6,860 3,430 3,167 1,584 152,292 12,691 6,346 5,858 2,929 15 87,520 7,294 3,647 3,367 1,684 161,912 13,493 6,747 6,228 3,114 16 92,720 7,727 3,864 3,567 1,784 171,532 14,295 7,148 6,598 3,299 Each add'l family member add + $5,200 + $434 + $217 + $200 + $100 + $9,620 + $802 + $401 + $370 + $185 Hawaii 9 $51,790 $4,316 $2,158 $1,992 $996 $95,812 $7,985 $3,993 $3,686 $1,843 10 56,570 4,715 2,358 2,176 1,088 104,655 8,722 4,361 4,026 2,013 11 61,350 5,113 2,557 2,360 1,180 113,498 9,459 4,730 4,366 2,183 12 66,130 5,511 2,756 2,544 1,272 122,341 10,196 5,098 4,706 2,353 13 70,910 5,910 2,955 2,728 1,364 131,184 10,932 5,466 5,046 2,523 14 75,690 6,308 3,154 2,912 1,456 140,027 11,669 5,835 5,386 2,693 15 80,470 6,706 3,353 3,095 1,548 148,870 12,406 6,203 5,726 2,863 16 85,250 7,105 3,553 3,279 1,640 157,713 13,143 6,572 6,066 3,033 Each add'l family member add + $4,780 + $399 + $200 + $184 + $92 + $8,843 + $737 + $369 + $341 + $171

    Because the poverty guidelines for Alaska and Hawaii are higher than for the 48 contiguous States, separate tables for Alaska and Hawaii have been included for the convenience of the State agencies.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 1786.

    Dated: March 26, 2015. Jeffrey J. Tribiano, Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07359 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request—National Universal Product Code (NUPC) Database AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This is a revision of a currently approved collection for the development and maintenance of a central repository containing information about authorized WIC foods as approved by various WIC State agencies.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments may be sent to: Steve Porter, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 528, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Steve Porter at 703-305-2196 or via email to [email protected]. Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Steve Porter at 703-305-2721.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: National Universal Product Code (NUPC) Database

    Form Number: N/A

    OMB Number: 0584-0552

    Expiration Date: May 31, 2015

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection

    Abstract: The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), (Pub. L. 109-85), provides low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum women, infants, and children up to age five with nutritious supplemental foods. The program also provides nutrition education and referrals to health and social services.

    The WIC Program is administered by the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). FNS provides grant funding and issues regulations which are utilized by WIC State agencies to operate the WIC Program and distribute benefits through local WIC clinics. The program operates throughout the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and in 34 Indian Tribal Organizations.

    The USDA Food and Nutrition Service previously included WIC State agencies in burden calculations for the NUPC database. WIC State agencies have been removed from this burden calculation and will instead be included in the burden calculation associated with the final regulations for WIC Electronic Benefit Transfer promulgated as a result of The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-296). The remainder of this abstract provides a brief description of WIC program operations and recent modifications to the NUPC database.

    WIC State agencies are required to authorize eligible foods on their WIC food list by federal regulations at 7 CFR part 246. Under these regulations, State agencies must review food products for eligibility in accordance with Federal regulations and State agency policies. State agencies are not required to authorize all food products eligible under federal regulations, but generally select foods based on factors such as cost, availability and acceptability to participants. After review, the State agency develops a list of food items available to WIC participants for purchase. State agencies require Authorized Vendors (i.e., stores authorized to provide WIC foods) to ensure only authorized food items are purchased. A few of these vendors have programmed their point of sale systems to identify WIC approved foods and their associated Universal Product Code (UPC) or Price Look-Up (PLU) code as individual products are scanned at the checkout; however, many vendors still rely on their checkout clerks to ensure only authorized WIC products are approved for purchase.

    WIC State agencies currently operating Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) systems provide their Authorized Vendors with an electronic file containing the State agency's current list of authorized foods. This food list is known as the Authorized Products List (APL). In State agencies where EBT systems are operational, as products are scanned at the checkout lane, the UPC or PLU is matched to the State specific APL. Food items matching the APL, and which are presented in quantities less than or equal to the remaining benefit balance associated with the participant's WIC EBT card, are approved for purchase. Unmatched items, or items in excess of the available account balance, may not be purchased with WIC benefits.

    The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a National Universal Product Code (NUPC) database for use by all WIC State agencies as they implement Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) statewide. As a result of this legislation, FNS has adopted a plan to expand the number of data elements contained in the existing NUPC database while simultaneously attempting to reduce the burden on WIC State agency employees tasked with creating State specific APL's by assembling food product information in an easily accessible repository.

    NUPC database modifications and expansion activities have allowed for the storage and retrieval of additional data elements for each WIC authorized food to include: Nutrition facts panel, ingredients, special processing practices (i.e., Kosher or Halal), and a free form comments field. All previously used product identifier fields were retained. Responsibility for populating the NUPC database, which previously resided with individual WIC State agencies, has been transferred to an independent contractor who will serve as the single point of entry for all information entering the NUPC database. This contractor will ensure NUPC data is captured with a high level of accuracy while preserving data integrity in a standardized format.

    The NUPC database will provide all WIC State agencies with access to a central repository containing comprehensive information about authorized WIC foods. State agencies may choose to use the NUPC database to create an initial list of authorized foods eligible for redemption by WIC Program participants. Subsequently, State agencies may use the NUPC database to maintain their list of authorized foods and to create an APL for distribution to Authorized Vendors when operating in the EBT environment.

    Affected Public: Businesses or Other For Profit Organizations. Respondent groups identified include: (1) Food Manufacturers and Distributors; and (2) Authorized Vendors.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: The total estimated number of respondents is 360. This includes 240 Food Manufacturers or Distributors and 120 Authorized Vendors.

    Estimated Frequency of Responses per Respondent: 3.33. The 240 Food Manufacturers or Distributors will be asked to provide product information in electronic format (.doc, .xls, .pdf). All responses are voluntary. FNS estimates that each of the Food Manufacturers or Distributors will be asked to provide product information 4 times per year on average and that each of the 120 Authorized Vendors will be asked to provide product information 2 times per year on average.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: The total number of responses is estimated to be 1,200. FNS estimates Food Manufacturers or Distributors will be asked to respond a total of 960 times per year (240 Food Manufacturers or Distributors × 4 responses per year each = 960). FNS estimates Authorized Vendors will be asked to respond a total of 240 times per year (120 Authorized Vendors × 2 responses per year each = 240). All responses are voluntary.

    Estimated Time per Response: 8.6 hours.

    The estimated time per response varies by type of respondent. FNS expects all respondents will expend 12 hours per respondent per year to develop, maintain, and troubleshoot the electronic systems for use in transmitting information. The estimated time required to develop, maintain, and troubleshoot electronic systems is amortized over the expected number of responses. FNS also expects all respondents will expend 2 seconds per response to transmit information to FNS electronically. Since the time required to actually transmit the information to FNS is considered negligible (total of 40 minutes per year for all respondents), it was omitted from the burden calculation. FNS expects that Food Manufacturers or Distributors will expend 6 hours per response to gather and format the requested information. Authorized Vendors are expected to expend 1 hour per response to gather and format the requested information.The estimated time per response for Food Manufacturers or Distributors is expected to be 9 hours per response ((12 hours per year/4 responses per year) + 6 hours per response = 9 hours per response).

    The estimated time per response for Authorized Vendors is expected to be 7 hours per response ((12 hours per year/2 responses per year) + 1 hour per response = 7 hours per response).

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on all Respondents: 10,320 hours. The table below provides an estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent.

    Respondent Estimated
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of responses per respondent
  • (annually)
  • Total annual responses Estimated
  • average
  • number of
  • hours per
  • response
  • Estimated total hours
    Food Manufacturers and Distributors (Voluntary) 240 4 960 9.0 8,640.0 Authorized Vendors (Voluntary) 120 2 240 7.0 1,680.0 Total Reporting Burden 360 3.33 1,200 8.6 10,320.0
    Dated: March 19, 2015. Audrey Rowe, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07369 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Missouri Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Discuss Matters Related to Its Project on Police-Community Relations in Missouri; Correction AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights published a document in the Federal Register of March 9, 2015, concerning a meeting of the Missouri Advisory Committee to discuss matters related to its project on police-community relations in Missouri. The document contained an incorrect date and time.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Mussatt, 312-353-8311.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of March 18, 2015, in 80 FR 14071, in the third column on page 14071, the first sentence of the Summary section should be changed to read:

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Missouri Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Wednesday, April 1, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m. CST.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of March 18, 2015, in 80 FR 14071, in the first column on page 14072, the first sentence of the Dates section should be changed to read:

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 1, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. CST.

    Dated: March 18, 2015. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07240 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the New York Advisory Committee

    Dates and Times: Friday, April 10, 2015 at 12:00 p.m. [EDT]

    Place: Via Teleconference. Public Dial-in 1-877-446-3914; Listen Line Code: 3098402

    TDD: Dial Federal Relay Service 1-800-977-8339 give operator the following number: 202-376-7533—or by email at [email protected]

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the New York Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 12:00 p.m. via conference call on Friday, April 10, 2015. The purpose of the planning meeting is for the Advisory Committee to discuss plans to conduct a public meeting on the over policing of communities of color in New York.

    The meeting will be conducted via conference call. Persons with hearing impairments must first dial the Federal Relay Service TDD: 1-800-977-8339 and give the operator the Eastern Regional Office number (202-376-7533).

    Members of the public who call-in can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number.

    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The comments must be received in ERO by 30 days after the meeting date. Comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Eastern Regional Office at 202-376-7533.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone number, email or street address.

    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Exceptional Circumstance: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, the notice for this meeting is given less than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting because of the exceptional circumstances of technical difficulties occurring in the process of having the meeting notice signed and sent to the Federal Register.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07239 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD858 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council's (Council) Observer Policy Committee will meet to review scientific information affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, April 16, 2015 beginning at 9:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Four Points by Sheraton (formerly Sheraton Colonial), One Audubon Ave., Wakefield, MA 01880.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda items:

    The Observer Committee will review and discuss updated information and analyses for the draft Environmental Assessment for the NMFS-led omnibus amendment to establish provisions for Industry-Funded Monitoring (IFM) across all Council-managed fisheries; consider additional options for industry-funded portside sampling and electronic monitoring (EM) in the Atlantic herring fishery, to be implemented immediately in the IFM amendment (versus a framework adjustment); develop Committee recommendations; review/discuss updated information related to herring/mackerel economic analysis in omnibus IFM amendment; discuss other elements of IFM amendment and develop Committee recommendations; review Draft Action Plan and timeline for completion of IFM amendment. They will address other business as necessary.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 26, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07311 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Extension of Deadline of Request for Applicants for Appointment to the United States-Brazil CEO Forum AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    On March 16, 2015, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a Federal Register notice requesting applications for appointment to the United States-Brazil CEO Forum, providing March 30, 2015, as the deadline to submit applications to the Department for immediate consideration.1 This notice extends the deadline from March 30, 2015, to Monday, April 13, 2015.

    1See Request for Applicants for Appointment to the United States-Brazil CEO Forum, 80 FR 13521 (March 16, 2015)(“Request for Applicants”).

    DATES:

    Applications for immediate consideration should be received no later than close of business April 13, 2015. Applications will continue to be accepted until June 30, 2016, for appointments to fill future vacancies that may arise.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please send requests for consideration to Braeden Young, Office of Latin America and the Caribbean, U.S. Department of Commerce, either by email at [email protected] or by mail to U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room CC334, Washington, DC 20230.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Braeden Young, Office of Latin America and the Caribbean, U.S. Department of Commerce, telephone: (202) 482-1093.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    For more information on the United States-Brazil CEO Forum, please see the Request for Applicants. The Terms of Reference may be viewed at: http://www.trade.gov/ceo-forum/.

    As delineated in the Request for Applicants, to be considered for membership, please submit the following information as instructed in the ADDRESSES and DATES captions above: Name(s) and title(s) of the individual(s) requesting consideration; name and address of company's headquarters; location of incorporation; size of the company; size of company's export trade, investment, and nature of operations or interest in Brazil; an affirmative statement that the applicant is neither registered nor required to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended; and a brief statement of why the candidate should be considered, including information about the candidate's ability to initiate and be responsible for activities in which the Forum will be active. Applications will be considered as they are received. All candidates will be notified of whether they have been selected.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Alexander Peacher, Acting Director for the Office of Latin America & the Caribbean.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07385 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-HE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Pacific Islands Logbook Family of Forms AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Walter Ikehara, (808) 725-5175 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Fishermen in Federally-managed fisheries in the western Pacific region are required to provide certain information about their fishing activities, catch, and interactions with protected species by submitting reports to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), per 50 CFR part 665. These data are needed to determine the condition of the stocks and whether the current management measures are having the intended effects, to evaluate the benefits and costs of changes in management measures, and to monitor and respond to accidental takes of endangered and threatened species, including seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals.

    II. Method of Collection

    Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include email of electronic forms, submission via Vessel Monitoring System device or online, and mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0214.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved collection).

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 280.

    Estimated Time per Response: Logbooks and sales reports, 5-35 minutes based on fishery, entry/exit and landing notices, Protected Species Zone entry/exit notices, 5 minutes; landing/offloading notices, 3 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 14,867.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $1,300 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07244 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-16-2015] Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Xylem Water Systems USA LLC, Subzone 37D (Centrifugal and Submersible Pumps), Auburn, New York

    Xylem Water Systems USA LLC (Xylem), operator of Subzone 37D, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facilities located in Auburn, New York. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on March 23, 2015.

    Xylem already has authority to produce centrifugal and submersible pumps and related controllers. The current request would add a finished product (pump demonstration cutaways) and certain foreign-status materials and components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Xylem from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Xylem would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to centrifugal and submersible pumps (free), pump demonstration cutaways (free), and controllers (1.5%) for the foreign status components and materials noted below and in the existing scope of authority.

    Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.

    The components and materials sourced from abroad include: strainer parts; shaft coupling parts; cast iron bases; non-asbestos gaskets; plastic resins; electric current filtration devices; polyester rope; pressure transducers; and, fluid sight glasses (duty rate ranges from free to 6.5%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is May 11, 2015.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Pierre Duy at [email protected] (202) 482-1378.

    Dated: March 24, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07381 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument Mokupapapa Discovery Center Exhibit Evaluation AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Andy Collins, at (808) 694-3922 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection. Mokupapapa Discovery Center (Center) is an outreach arm of Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument that reaches 60,000 people each year in Hilo, Hawai`i. The Center was created eight years ago to help raise support for the creation of a National Marine Sanctuary in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Since that time, the area has been proclaimed a Marine National Monument and the main messages we are trying to share with the public have changed to better reflect the new monument status, UNESCO World Heritage status and the joint management by the three co-trustees of the Monument. We therefore are seeking to find out if people visiting our Center are receiving our new messages by conducting an optional exit survey.

    II. Method of Collection

    Surveys will be conducted by in-person interview as people exit the Center. Interviewers will record responses on paper, and later transfer them to an electronic database.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0582.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved collection).

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 250.

    Estimated Time Per Response: 7 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 29.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: March 26, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07290 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-867] Large Power Transformers From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On September 24, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from the Republic of Korea.1 The review covers five producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, Hyosung Corporation (Hyosung), Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (Hyundai), ILJIN, ILJIN Electric Co., Ltd. (ILJIN Electric), and LSIS Co., Ltd. (LSIS). ILJIN, ILJIN Electric, and LSIS, were not selected for individual examination. The period of review (POR) is February 16, 2012, through July 31, 2013. As a result of our analysis of the comments and information received, these final results differ from the Preliminary Results. For the final weighted-average dumping margins, see the “Final Results of Review” section below.

    1See Large Power Transformers From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 57046 (September 24, 2014) (Preliminary Results).

    DATES:

    Effective March 31, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Davis (Hyosung) or David Cordell (Hyundai), AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7924 or (202) 482-0408, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On September 24, 2014, the Department published the Preliminary Results. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results. 2 On October 15, 2014, the Department issued a post-preliminary supplemental questionnaire, to which Hyundai responded on November 3 and 12, 2014, and December 2, 2014. On December 19, 2014, Hyosung and ABB Inc. (Petitioner) timely submitted case briefs.3 Rebuttal briefs were also timely filed by Hyosung, Hyundai, and Petitioner, on January 9, 2015.4 On January 20, 2015, the Department issued a memorandum extending the time period for issuing the final results of this administrative review from January 22, 2015 to March 16, 2015. On March 6, 2015, the Department further extended the final results to March 23, 2015.5

    2 The Department issued the briefing schedule in a Memorandum to the File, dated November 3, 2014. This briefing schedule was later extended at the request of interested parties to December 19, 2014 for briefs and January 9, 2015 for rebuttal briefs on all issues, except one.

    3See Brief from Petitioner regarding Hyundai, (Petitioner Brief Hyundai), Brief from Petitioner regarding Hyosung (Petitioner Brief Hyosung) and Hyosung Brief, all dated December 19, 2014.

    4See Hyosung Rebuttal Brief, Hyundai Rebuttal Brief and Petitioner Rebuttal Brief: All dated January 9, 2015. Petitioner requested an extension for rebuttal briefs to January 9, 2015 which the Department granted for all parties on December 8, 2014. See Letter to All Interested Parties dated December 8, 2014. Petitioner also requested a further extension for submission of the initial briefs, which the Department denied in its letter to all parties dated December 17, 2014, with the exception of one issue.

    5See Memoranda to the file dated January 20, 2015 and March 6, 2015.

    Scope of the Order

    The scope of this order covers large liquid dielectric power transformers (LPTs) having a top power handling capacity greater than or equal to 60,000 kilovolt amperes (60 megavolt amperes), whether assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete. The merchandise subject to the order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States at subheadings 8504.23.0040, 8504.23.0080 and 8504.90.9540.6

    6 For a full description of the scope of the order, see the Memorandum from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, titled “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Large Power Transformers from the Republic of Korea; 2012-2013” (Issues and Decision Memorandum), which is issued concurrent with and hereby adopted by this notice, and dated concurrently with this notice.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.7 A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on-file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    7Id.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we recalculated Hyosung's and Hyundai's weighted-average dumping margins for these final results.

    For Hyosung, we revised our margin program by adjusting Hyosung's reported U.S. duty expenses for certain sales transactions. We are also including U.S. freight expenses that were excluded in the Preliminary Results and including the entered value of a unit that entered the United States during the POR in our calculation of the assessment rates for entries of LPTs during the POR.8

    8See Memorandum from Brian Davis to the File, regarding “Analysis of Data Submitted by Hyosung Corporation in the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Large Power Transformers from the Republic of Korea; 2012-2013” (Hyosung Final Analysis Memorandum), dated March 23, 2014, at section “Changes from the Preliminary Results,” for further information.

    We made some changes to our calculation programs for Hyundai with respect to oil and certain other expenses. We also used the latest revised databases for U.S. sales and the Cost of Production based on post-preliminary questionnaires and responses.9

    9See Memorandum from David Cordell to the File, regarding “Analysis of Data Submitted by Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. in the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Large Power Transformers from the Republic of Korea; 2012-2013” (Hyundai Final Analysis Memorandum), dated March 23, 2014, at section “Changes from the Preliminary Results,” for further information.

    As a result of the aforementioned recalculations of Hyosung's and Hyundai's weighted-average dumping margins, the weighted-average dumping margin for the three non-selected companies also changed.

    Final Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, the Department determines the following weighted-average dumping margins 10 for the period February 16, 2012, through July 31, 2013, are as follows:

    10 The rate applied to the non-selected companies (i.e., ILJIN, ILJIN Electric, and LSIS) is a weighted-average percentage margin calculated based on the publicly-ranged U.S. volumes of the two reviewed companies with an affirmative dumping margin, for the period February 16, 2012, through July 31, 2013. See Memorandum to the File titled, “Large Power Transformers from the Republic of Korea: Final Dumping Margin for Respondents Not Selected for Individual Examination,” through Angelica Townshend, Program Manager, dated concurrently with this notice.

    Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Hyosung Corporation 6.43 Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. 9.53 ILJIN Electric Co., Ltd. 8.16 ILJIN 8.16 LSIS Co., Ltd. 8.16
    Duty Assessment

    The Department shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.11 For any individually examined respondents whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis, we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries.

    11 In these final results, the Department applied the assessment rate calculation method adopted in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

    To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), for each respondent we calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the amount of dumping calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer or customer and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer (or customer). Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis, and the respondent has reported reliable entered values, we apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importer's/customer's entries during the review period.

    The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.12 This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see the Automatic Assessment Clarification.

    12See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Automatic Assessment Clarification).

    We intend to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for respondents noted above will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 29.93 percent, the all-others rate established in the antidumping investigation.13 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    13See Large Power Transformers From the Republic of Korea: Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 53177 (August 31, 2012).

    Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties

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

    Administrative Protective Order

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

    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

    Dated: March 23, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Final Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. List of Issues III. Background IV. Discussion of Interested Party Comments A. General Issues Comment 1: Whether the Department Treats Installation Expenses as Further Manufacturing Costs B. Hyosung-Specific Issues Comment 2: Discrepancies Between Hyosung's Net U.S. Price (as Calculated by the Department) and Reported Entered Values Comment 3: Hyosung Has Overstated Its Reported U.S. Prices and Understated/Omitted U.S. Expenses and Whether To Apply Adverse Facts Available (AFA) Comment 4: U.S. Commission Expenses Comment 5: U.S. Ocean Freight Expenses Comment 6: Installation Expenses Comment 7: The Department Erred in Conducting the Differential Pricing Analysis Comment 8: Consideration of an Alternative Comparison Method in an Administrative Review Comment 9: Denial of Offsets for Non-Dumped U.S. Sales When Using the A-To-T Comparison Method In Administrative Reviews Comment 10: Harbor Maintenance Fees Comment 11: Oil Expenses Comment 12: Exclusion of Certain U.S. Freight Expenses for a Particular U.S. Sales Transaction Comment 13: Calculation of Importer-Specific Assessment Rate Comment 14: Incomplete Further Manufacturing Cost Data C. Hyundai-Specific Issues Comment 15: Hyundai's U.S. Sales Data are Not Reliable or Verifiable Because of Certain Submissions and Should Not Be Used in the Final Results Comment 16: AFA With Respect to Comment 15 (Above). Comment 17: “Overlapping” Sales Between Investigation and This Review Comment 18: Alleged Underreported U.S. Movement and Selling Expenses Comment 19: Hyundai's Reporting of Home Market Sales Comment 20: Indirect Selling Expenses Comment 21: Section E Response Was Not Complete Comment 22: Whether Total AFA is Warranted Based On the Totality of Hyundai's Responses V. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-07382 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-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 30, 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. 3038-0069. Please provide the Commission with a copy of all submitted comments at the address listed below. Please refer to OMB Reference No. 3038-0069, 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 § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.1

    1 Commission regulations referred to herein are found at 17 CFR Ch. 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. 3038-0069.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Title: “Information Management Requirements for Derivatives Clearing Organization,” OMB Control No. 3038-0069—Extension. This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: Part 39 of the Commission's regulations establishes information management requirements for derivatives clearing organizations (“DCOs”), which are required to be registered with the Commission. The Commission will use the information in this collection to assess compliance of DCOs 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 11 hours per response.

    Respondents/Affected Entities: Derivatives clearing organizations and applicants for registration as a derivatives clearing organization.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 14.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 38,546 hours.

    Frequency of Collection: Daily, annually, and on occasion.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07283 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request AGENCY:

    Corporation for National and Community Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled Senior Corps Foster Grand Parent pilot case study for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Anthony Nerino, at (202) 606-3913 or email to [email protected] Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register:

    (1) By fax to: (202) 395-6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; or

    (2) By email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

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

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments

    A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2014. This comment period ended March 2, 2015. No public comments were received from this Notice.

    Description: CNCS seeks to implement case studies of selected FGP grantees that are implementing two similar national education models in various service sites. The information is designed to allow CNCS Senior Corps administrators to understand the process and experiences of grantees as they implement national education models including member and beneficiary recruitment, member training, program structure and processes, program modifications specific to FGP, scope and reach of the various projects, and observed outcomes for members and beneficiaries.

    The case study instrument will involve interviews and focus groups with current and former FGP project administrators, staff including site supervisors and volunteer coordinators and volunteers at two sites implementing each of two different models—Jumpstart and Reading Partners. Potential sites for inclusion in the study have been drawn from existing and former grantees implementing two national models, Jumpstart and Reading Partners.

    Interview and focus group data will be collected via taped and written responses to telephone conversations. Data analysis will focus on identifying and understanding factors associated the process (opportunity costs, benefits, obstacles and preparation) related to the decision to use a model approach to tutoring and educational interventions.

    Type of Review: New.

    Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

    Title: The Foster Grand Parent Pilot Case Study.

    OMB Number: TBD.

    Agency Number: None.

    Affected Public: Current and former FGP project administrators, staff, including site supervisors and volunteer coordinators, and volunteers.

    Total Respondents: 140 respondents.

    Frequency: Once.

    Average Time per Response: 60 minutes for interviews (80 participants)/90 minutes for focus groups (60 Participants).

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 170 total hours.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Mary Hyde, Deputy Director, Office of Research and Evaluation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07241 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0037] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) 2016 and 2018 AGENCY:

    Institute of Education Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics (IES), 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 a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0037, 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 Kashka Kubzdela, 202-502-7411.

    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: School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) 2016 and 2018.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-0761.

    Type of Review: A reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 3,919.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,795.

    Abstract: The School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) is a nationally representative survey of elementary and secondary school principals that serve as the primary source of school-level data on crime and safety in public schools. SSOCS is the only recurring federal survey collecting detailed information on the incidence, frequency, seriousness, and nature of violence affecting students and school personnel from the school's perspective. Data are also collected on frequency and types of disciplinary actions taken for select offenses; perceptions of other disciplinary problems, such as bullying, verbal abuse and disorder in the classroom; the presence and role of school security staff; parent and community involvement; staff training; mental health services available to students; and, school policies and programs concerning crime and safety. Prior administrations of SSOCS were conducted in 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010. This request is to conduct the 2016 and 2018 administrations of SSOCS.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07246 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2881-014; ER10-2882-014; ER10-2883-014; ER10-2884-014; ER10-2885-014; ER10-2641-014; ER10-2663-014; ER10-2886-014; ER13-1101-009; ER13-1541-008; ER14-787-002.

    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.

    Description: Second Supplement to June 30, 2014 Updated Market Power Analysis of Alabama Power Company, et. al.

    Filed Date: 3/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150320-5274.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1929-001.

    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: FPL's Second Order No. 1000 Interregional Further Regional Compliance Filings to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5223.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1940-002.

    Applicants: Ohio Valley Electric Corporation.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Interregional Compliance Filing for the SERTP-FRCC and SERTP-SCRTP Seams to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5189.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1016-000.

    Applicants: Shafter Solar, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to February 9, 2015 Shafter Solar, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5240.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1368-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-03-24_SA 2762 ATC-UPPCo Project Commitment Agreement to be effective 5/24/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5193.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1369-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Amended Service Agmt for Wholesale Distribution Service with Mogul Energy to be effective 5/25/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150325-5001.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1370-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 3001 KCP&L GMO and AECI Interconnection Agreement to be effective 2/25/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150325-5064.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1371-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Notice of Termination of the Large Generator Interconnection Agreement No. 719 of Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Filed Date: 3/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150325-5094.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings.

    Docket Numbers: RD15-3-000.

    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.

    Description: Supplemental Petition of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation for Approval of Proposed Reliability Standards PRC-001-1.1(ii), PRC-019-2 and PRC-024-2.

    Filed Date: 3/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150313-5161.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/9/15.

    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 25, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07303 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB) AGENCY:

    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a live Board meeting of the State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 86 Stat.770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    April 28, 2015 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; April 29, 2015 9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Hilton Garden Inn Austin Downtown/Convention Center, 500 N Interstate 35, Austin, TX 78701

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Monica Neukomm, Policy Advisor, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585. Phone number 202-287-5189, and email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: To make recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy regarding goals and objectives, programmatic and administrative policies, and to otherwise carry out the Board's responsibilities as designated in the State Energy Efficiency Programs Improvement Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-440).

    Tentative Agenda: Meet with and hear from members of the Austin Technology Incubator, receive updates and information from ERCOT regarding demand response and transmission planning, meet with staff from Austin Energy, hear from EERE and DOE staff regarding updates on the new Office of Technology Transitions, explore opportunities to continue assisting with the QER year 2 process, discuss updates and provide recommendations on the Weatherization Assistance Program, tour the Mueller site and the Pecan Street sites, and update members of the Board on routine business matters.

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Monica Neukomm at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests to make oral comments must be received five days prior to the meeting; reasonable provision will be made to include requested topic(s) on the agenda. The Chair of the Board is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business.

    Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public review and copying within 90 days on the STEAB Web site, www.steab.org.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on March 25, 2015. LaTanya Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07379 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-103-000.

    Applicants: Iberdrola, S.A., Iberdrola USA, Inc., Iberdrola USA Networks, Inc., Green Merger Sub, Inc., UIL Holdings Corporation.

    Description: Joint Application of Iberdrola S.A, et al. for Authorization of Transaction under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Requests for Waivers of Filing Requirements, Shortened Comment Period and Expedited Consideration.

    Filed Date: 3/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150325-5217.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-348-004.

    Applicants: Mercuria Energy America, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: MBR Tariff to be effective 3/26/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150325-5245.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1332-002.

    Applicants: Canadian Hills Wind, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation per 35.17(a): CH Withdrawal to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 3/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150325-5165.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1372-000.

    Applicants: Canadian Hills Wind, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Filing of Amended Co-Tenancy and Shared Facilities Agreement to be effective 5/12/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150325-5174.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1373-000.

    Applicants: Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(i): Orange and Rockland Undergrounding Rate 3.24.15 to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150325-5175.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1374-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Potomac Electric Power Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Potomac Electric Power Company submits revisions to OATT Att H-9A to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150325-5196.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1375-000.

    Applicants: McCoy Solar, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing per 35.1: McCoy Solar, LLC Application for Market-Based Rate Authority to be effective 5/24/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150325-5230.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1376-000.

    Applicants: Mercuria Commodities Canada Corporation.

    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Notice of Cancellation to be effective 3/26/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150325-5246.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1377-000

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-03-25_SA 2707 NSP-Odell Wind Farm 1st Rev GIA (G826) to be effective 3/26/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150325-5247.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1378-000.

    Applicants: Mercuria Commodities Canada Corporation.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing per 35.1: Refile MBR Tariff to be effective 3/26/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150325-5248.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-755-001.

    Applicants: Powerex Corp.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: FERC Rate Schedule No. 1 Compliance Filing to be effective 3/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150325-5195.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/15.

    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 25, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07304 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0439; EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0442; EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0443; FRL-9925-45-OW] Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical and Radionuclides Rules Renewal Information Collection Request; Microbial Rules Renewal Information Collection Request; Public Water System Supervision Program Renewal Information Collection Request AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be submitting renewals of information collection requests (ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The ICRs included in this renewal notice are the Microbial Rules Renewal Information Collection Request, EPA ICR No. 1895.08, OMB Control No. 2040-0205, which expires on August 31, 2015; the Public Water System Supervision Program Renewal Information Collection Request, EPA ICR No. 0270.46, OMB Control No. 2040-0090, which expires on October 31, 2015; and the Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical and Radionuclides Rules Renewal Information Collection Request (ICR), EPA ICR No. 1896.10, OMB Control No. 2040-0204, which expires on December 31, 2015. EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collections as described in this renewal notice. The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing the Docket ID numbers provided for each ICR listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected] or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without modifications including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kevin Roland, Drinking Water Protection Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, (4606M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-4588; fax number: 202-564-3755; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents that explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public dockets for these ICRs. The dockets can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICRs as appropriate. The final ICR packages will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICRs to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    EPA ICR No. 1895.08, OW-2011-0442 Microbial Rules Renewal Information Collection Request

    Abstract: The Microbial Rules Renewal ICR examines public water system and primacy agency burden and costs for recordkeeping and reporting requirements in support of the microbial drinking water regulations. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are mandatory for compliance per the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR parts 141 and 142. The following microbial regulations are included: the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), the Total Coliform Rule (TCR), the Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR), the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), the Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR), the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR), the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR), the Ground Water Rule (GWR) and the Aircraft Drinking Water Rule (ADWR). Future microbial-related rulemakings will be added to this consolidated ICR after the regulations are promulgated and the initial, rule-specific, ICRs are due to expire.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are new and existing public water systems and primacy agencies.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory for compliance with 40 CFR parts 141 and 142.

    Estimated number of respondents: 153,083 (total).

    Frequency of response: Varies by requirement (i.e., on occasion, monthly, quarterly, semi-annually and annually).

    Total estimated burden: 12,930,414 hours (per year). Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $590,507,000 (per year), includes $20,386,000 annualized capital and $115,808,000 operation and maintenance costs.

    Changes in estimates: There is no estimated increase or decrease of hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB.

    EPA ICR No. 0270.46, OW-2011-0443 Public Water System Supervision Program Renewal Information Collection Request

    Abstract: The Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program Renewal ICR examines public water system, primacy agency and tribal operator certification provider burden and costs for “cross-cutting” recordkeeping and reporting requirements (i.e., the burden and costs for complying with drinking water information requirements that are not associated with contaminant-specific rulemakings). The following activities have recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are mandatory for compliance with 40 CFR parts 141 and 142: The Consumer Confidence Report Rule (CCR), the Variance and Exemption Rule (V/E Rule), General State Primacy Activities, the Public Notification Rule (PN) and Proficiency Testing Studies for Drinking Water Laboratories. The information collection activities for both the Operator Certification Program and the Capacity Development Program are driven by the grant withholding and reporting provisions under sections 1419 and 1420, respectively, of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Although the Tribal Operator Certification Program is voluntary, the information collection is driven by grant eligibility requirements outlined in the Drinking Water Infrastructure Grant Tribal Set-Aside Program Final Guidelines and the Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program Guidelines.

    Form numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are new and existing public water systems and primacy agencies.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory for compliance with 40 CFR parts 141 and 142.

    Estimated number of respondents: 154,938 (total).

    Frequency of response: Varies by requirement (i.e., on occasion, monthly, quarterly, semi-annually and annually).

    Total estimated burden: 4,113,408 hours (per year). Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $227,666,000. This includes an estimated burden cost of $40,019,000 for maintenance and operational costs.

    Changes in estimates: There is no estimated increase or decrease of hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB.

    EPA ICR No. 1896.10, OW-2011-0439 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical and Radionuclides Rules Information Collection Request

    Abstract: The Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical and Radionuclides Rules ICR examines public water system and primacy agency burden and costs for recordkeeping and reporting requirements in support of the chemical drinking water regulations. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are mandatory for compliance with 40 CFR parts 141 and 142. The following chemical regulations are included: The Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR), the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR), the Chemical Phase Rules (Phases II/IIB/V), the Radionuclides Rule, the Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM) Rule, Disinfectant Residual Monitoring and Associated Activities under the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), the Arsenic Rule, the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) and the Lead and Copper Rule Short Term Revisions. Future chemical-related rulemakings will be added to this consolidated ICR after the regulations are promulgated and the initial, rule-specific, ICRs are due to expire.

    Form numbers: None

    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are new and existing public water systems and primacy agencies.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory for compliance with 40 CFR parts 141 and 142.

    Estimated number of respondents: 153,036.

    Frequency of response: Varies by requirement (i.e., on occasion, monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, annually, biennially and every 3, 6 and 9 years).

    Total estimated burden: 5,734,335 hours (per year). Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $435,706,000 (per year), includes $4,984,000 annualized capital and $225,068,000 operation and maintenance costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is no estimated increase or decrease of hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB.

    Dated: March 20, 2015. Peter Grevatt, Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07357 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0090; FRL-9925-25-OW] Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Information Collection Request Renewal for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 3) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be submitting the “Information Collection Request Renewal for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 3)” (EPA ICR No. 2192.06, OMB Control No. 2040-0270) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA solicits public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described in this renewal notice. This is a proposed extension of the information collection request (ICR), which is currently approved through August 31, 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.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0090, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected] or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda D. Parris, Technical Support Center, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, Ohio 45268; telephone (513) 569-7961 or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents that explain in detail the information that EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA requests comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996, requires EPA to establish criteria for a program for public water systems (PWSs) to monitor not more than 30 unregulated contaminants every five years. Information collected under the program supports Agency decision making regarding whether or not to regulate particular contaminants in drinking water. EPA published the first group of contaminants in UCMR 1, in the Federal Register on September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556), and the second group of contaminants in UCMR 2, in the Federal Register on January 4, 2007 (72 FR 368). UCMR 3 addresses the third group of 30 contaminants and was published in the Federal Register on May 2, 2012 (77 FR 26071).

    UCMR 3 “Assessment Monitoring” began in January 2013 and continues through December 2015 for all large systems (those systems serving 10,001 to 100,000 people) and very large systems (those systems serving more than 100,000 people), and for a nationally representative sample of 800 small systems (those systems serving 10,000 or fewer people). The “Screening Survey” began in January 2013 and continues through December 2015 for all very large systems, 320 randomly-selected large systems, and 480 randomly selected small systems. “Pre-Screen Testing” began in January 2013 and continues through December 2015 for a sample of 800 small, undisinfected ground water systems (those systems serving 1,000 or fewer people).

    This notice proposes renewal of the currently approved UCMR 3 ICR, (OMB Control No. 2040-0270), which covers the period 2012-2014. This ICR renewal accounts for activities conducted during 2015-2017. The complete five-year UCMR 3 period of 2012-2016 overlaps with the applicable ICR period only during 2015 and 2016. PWSs will only be involved in active monitoring during 2015 (i.e., one-third of this ICR period).

    This information collection does not require respondents to disclose confidential information.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Data associated with this ICR are collected and submitted by PWSs. States, territories and tribes with primacy to administer the regulatory program for PWSs under SDWA may participate in UCMR 3 implementation through a partnership agreement with EPA. These primacy agencies may sometimes conduct monitoring and maintain records.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory. The information collection is carried out per section 1445(a) of SDWA.

    Estimated number of respondents: There are approximately 6,351 respondents to UCMR 3, including 2,098 PWSs that will monitor during the ICR years of 2015-2017; and 56 states and primacy agents.

    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies based on the respondent type. PWSs and states have a different number of responses. PWSs served by surface water monitor for the UCMR contaminants four times during a 12-month period. PWSs served by ground water monitor twice during a 12-month period. The number of samples collected by PWSs also differs based on the size of the systems, and the number of entry points and distribution system sample points within each system. The total number of responses per respondent is 2.96 over the three ICR years of 2015-2017, or an average of 0.99 responses per respondent per year.

    Total estimated burden: EPA estimates the annual labor burden per respondent at 8.31 hours during the ICR years of 2015-2017 for states and PWSs. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: EPA estimates the total cost at $7.45 million per year during the ICR years of 2015-2017 for states and PWSs. The total costs include labor costs and laboratory analysis (non-labor) costs. EPA pays for the analytical and sample shipping costs for small PWSs, and the Agency collects all the Pre-Screen Testing samples for all PWSs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 68,294 hours in the total estimated respondent burden for states and PWSs compared with the existing ICR. Respondents to this renewal ICR will incur a different burden than those responding to the original ICR for 2012-2014 because:

    • Fewer PWSs participate during the ICR period of 2015-2017 than in 2012-2014. Only one third of the systems monitor for UCMR 3 contaminants in 2015-2017; two-thirds of the systems have already monitored for UCMR 3 contaminants in 2012-2014.

    • The schedule of activities for PWSs differs. Some initial activities were conducted by all systems during the previous ICR period. These activities will not take place during the second ICR period of 2015-2017.

    • The schedule of activities differs for participating states. Management and support activities for states vary with the UCMR 3 monitoring schedule. States are expected to incur less burden during this second UCMR 3 ICR period of 2015-2017.

    Dated: March 20, 2015. Peter Grevatt, Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07360 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewal; Comment Request (3064-0109, 0162 & 0165) AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of existing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the FDIC is soliciting comment on renewal of the information collections described below.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before April 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:

    http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal/.

    Email: [email protected] Include the name of the collection in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Gary A. Kuiper, Counsel, (202.898.3877), or John Popeo, Counsel, (202.898.6923), MB-3007, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429. Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

    All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gary Kuiper or John Popeo, at the FDIC address above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposal To Renew the Following Currently-Approved Collections of Information

    1. Title: Notice of Branch Closure

    OMB Number: 3064-0109.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Affected Public: State nonmember banks and state savings associations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 509.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2.6 hours.

    Total Annual Burden: 1319 hours.

    General Description of Collection: Section 42 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act mandates that an institution proposing to close a branch give its primary regulator no less than 90 days written notice. Notices of closure are submitted on occasion as needed. Also, each insured depository institution must adopt branch closing policies. The adoption of policies is a one-time activity, repeated only if the institution finds need to revise its policy.

    2. Title: Large-Bank Deposit Insurance Programs

    OMB Number: 3064-0162.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Insured depository institutions having at least $2 billion in domestic deposits and either at least: (i) 250,000 deposit accounts; or (ii) $20 million in total assets.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 159.

    Estimated Time per Response: 157—255.5 hours.

    Total Annual Burden: 25,000—40,624.5 hours.

    General Description of Collection: Insured depository institutions having at least $2 billion in domestic deposits and either: (1) More than 250,000 deposit accounts; or (2) total assets over $20 billion, regardless of the number of deposit accounts are required to adopt mechanisms that, in the event of the institution's failure: (1) Provide the FDIC with standard deposit account and customer information; and (2) allow the FDIC to place and release holds on liability accounts, including deposits.

    3. Title: Basel II Interagency Supervisory Guidance for the Supervisory Review Process (Pillar 2).

    OMB Number: 3064-0165.

    Frequency of Response: Event-generated.

    Affected Public: Insured state nonmember banks and certain subsidiaries of these entities.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 19.

    Estimated Time per Response: 420 hours.

    Total Annual Burden: 7,980 hours.

    General Description of Collection: The agencies issued a supervisory guidance document for implementing the supervisory review process (Pillar 2). The guidance was issued on July 31, 2008 (73 FR 44620). Sections 37, 41, 43, and 46 of the guidance impose information collection requirements. Section 37 states that banks should state clearly the definition of capital used in any aspect of its internal capital adequacy assessment process (ICAAP) and document any changes in the internal definition of capital. Section 41 requires banks to maintain thorough documentation of ICAAP. Section 43 specifies that boards of directors must approve the bank's ICAAP, review it on a regular basis, and approve any changes. Boards of directors also are required under section 46 to periodically review the assessment of overall capital adequacy and to analyze how measures of internal capital adequacy compare with other capital measures (such as regulatory or accounting).

    Request for Comment

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated at Washington, DC, this 25th day of March 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07229 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.) (HOLA), Regulation LL (12 CFR part 238), and Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a savings and loan holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a savings association and nonbanking companies owned by the savings and loan holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 24, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:

    1. First Mutual Holding Company, Lakewood, Ohio; to reorganize into a MHC structure, and thereby acquire First Federal Saving and Loan Association of Lakewood, Lakewood, Ohio, in connection with the thrift's conversion from mutual to stock form.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 26, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07294 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 24, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Jones National Corporation, Seward, Nebraska; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Valparaiso Enterprises, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Oak Creek Valley Bank, both in Valparaiso, Nebraska.

    In connection with this application, Applicant also has applied to engage through Valparaiso Enterprises, Inc., Valparaiso, Nebraska, in general insurance activities in a town of less than 5,000 in population, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(11)(iii)(A).

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 26, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07295 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and section 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 15, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. The Belva H. Rasmussen 2012 Irrevocable Trust, Roseville, Minnesota, Pamela M. Harris, Falcon Heights, Minnesota, and Eva B. Rasmussen, Edina, Minnesota, individually and as trustees, and Benjamin T. Rasmussen, Edina, Minnesota, to retroactively join the Rasmussen Family Control Group; to acquire voting shares of Northeast Securities Corporation, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Northeast Bank, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 26, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07296 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel Development of Informatics Technology.

    Date: April 15-16, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W538, Rockville, MD 20850, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Nicholas Kenney, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Technology and Contract Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W246, Rockville, MD 20850, 240-276-6374, [email protected]

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/sep/sep.htm, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 26, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07340 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Notice for Public Comment on the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) AGENCY:

    Children's Bureau; Administration on Children, Youth and Families; ACF, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5106a, the Children's Bureau (CB) announces the opportunity for public comment on the policy interpretation of section 106(b)(2)(B)(x) articulated in question 2.1A.4 #8 of the Child Welfare Policy Manual (CWPM), which concerns the public disclosure of findings or information about a case of child abuse or neglect which results in a child fatality or near fatality.

    DATES:

    Submit written or electronic comments on or before June 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons may submit comments to http://www.regulations.gov/. We urge you to submit comments electronically to ensure they are received in a timely manner. Written comments may also be submitted to Kathleen McHugh, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Policy Division, 8th Floor, 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathleen McHugh, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Policy Division, 8th Floor, 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20024. Email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 106(b)(2)(B)(x) of CAPTA requires a certification by the State Governor that the State has in effect and is enforcing a State law, or has in effect and is operating a statewide program, relating to child abuse and neglect that includes “provisions which allow for public disclosure of the findings or information about the case of child abuse or neglect which has resulted in a child fatality or near fatality.” We revised our policy interpretation of the statutory provision regarding public disclosure of information in cases of child abuse or neglect which have resulted in a child fatality or near fatality found in section 106(b)(2)(B)(x) of CAPTA in September 2012 with the addition of CWPM question 2.1A.4 #8. This interpretation requires States to develop procedures for the release of information including, but not limited to: the cause of and circumstances regarding the fatality or near fatality; the age and gender of the child; information describing any previous reports or child abuse or neglect investigations that are pertinent to the child abuse or neglect that led to the fatality or near fatality; the result of any such investigations; and the services provided by and actions of the State on behalf of the child that are pertinent to the child abuse or neglect that led to the fatality or near fatality. States may allow exceptions to the release of information in order to ensure the safety and well-being of the child, parents and family or when releasing the information would jeopardize a criminal investigation, interfere with the protection of those who report child abuse or neglect or harm the child or the child's family. States must also ensure compliance with other federal confidentiality restrictions when implementing the confidentiality provisions under CAPTA, including the confidentiality requirements applicable to titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act (the Act) and in accordance with 45 CFR 1355.30, which requires that records maintained under title IV-E and IV-B of the Act are subject to the confidentiality provisions in 45 CFR 205.50. Among other things, 45 CFR 205.50 restricts the release or use of information concerning individuals receiving financial assistance under these programs to certain persons or agencies that require the information for specified purposes.

    We also revised several CWPM answers in section 2.1A to bring them in line with the policy as outlined in the new question and answer (Q/A). CWPM section 2.1A.1, questions 1, 2, 6, and 8; and CWPM section 2.1A.4, questions 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were all revised. At that time, Q/A 2.1A.4 #2, was deleted, but it was updated and reissued in August 2013. This Q/A clarifies that when child abuse or neglect results in the death or near death of a child, the State must provide for the disclosure of the information required by section 2.1A.4, Q/A #8 of the CWPM, but that the provision should not be interpreted to require disclosure of information which would fall within the specific exceptions that states are allowed to establish under section 2.1A.4, Q/A #8 of the CWPM. The full Q/A 2.1A.4 #2 can be found at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cwpm/programs/cb/laws_policies/laws/cwpm/policy_dsp.jsp?citID=68#320. The history of the modified Q/A's is also available in the CWPM at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cwpm/programs/cb/laws_policies/laws/cwpm/policy_dsp.jsp?citID=68#2561).

    We seek comment from state agencies and other stakeholders about the revised policy interpretation at CWPM, section 2.1A.4, Q/A #8, or any other revised policies in section 2.1A of the CWPM noted above.

    We encourage stakeholder respondents to address the following questions:

    (1) Please describe any challenges you've had obtaining information about child fatalities and near fatalities which resulted from child abuse and neglect from a state. Have there been improvements in obtaining the information since CB revised the policy in CWPM section 2.1.A in September 2012?

    (2) What concerns, if any, do you have with the definition of near fatalities in a state?

    (3) Has a state responded that the state cannot disclose information due to confidentiality protections? If so, describe the information requested and the confidentiality provision cited by the state.

    (4) Does your state offer a public report of the child fatalities review panel/commission? If so, does the report contain the required disclosure of information? Is the report a barrier to obtaining information?

    We encourage state agency respondents to address the following questions:

    (1) What challenges, if any, have you faced implementing the revised policy? Has the revised policy improved your disclosure process and policies?

    (2) Are there challenges in applying the disclosure policy while also ensuring that you adhere to confidentiality protections?

    Dated: March 24, 2015. Mark H. Greenberg, Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07390 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-29-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: AIDS and AIDS Related Research.

    Date: April 8, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Mary Clare Walker, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5208, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1165, [email protected]

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Topics in Bacterial Pathogenesis.

    Date: April 9, 2015.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Marci Scidmore, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3192, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1149, [email protected]

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Hypertension, Thrombosis, Vascular Inflammation and Dysfunction.

    Date: April 23-24, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place:National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Natalia Komissarova, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5207, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1206, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS).
    Dated: March 25, 2015. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07256 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0815] Electronic Study Data Submission; Data Standards; Recommending the Use of the World Health Organization Drug Dictionary AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing support for the World Health Organization (WHO) Drug Dictionary (available at http://www.who-umc.org/), which is maintained and updated by the Uppsala Monitoring Centre. FDA is encouraging sponsors and applicants to use WHO Drug Dictionary codes in investigational study data provided in regulatory submissions to the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and to the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. The WHO Drug Dictionary contains unique codes for identifying drug names and evaluating medicinal product information, including active ingredients and therapeutic uses. Typically, WHO Drug Dictionary is used to code concomitant medications used by subjects during the course of a clinical trial. WHO Drug Dictionary will be listed in the FDA Data Standards Catalog posted to FDA's Study Data Standards Resources Web site at http://www.fda.gov/forindustry/datastandards/studydatastandards/default.htm

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on this notice at any time, to ensure that the Agency considers your comments submit either electronic or written comments by May 5, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of the documents to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002 or the Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests.

    Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ron Fitzmartin, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 51, rm. 1192, Silver Spring, MD 20993-002, [email protected]; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The use of a common dictionary to code concomitant medications is an important component of study data standardization. Generally, controlled terminology standards specify the key concepts that are represented as definitions, preferred terms, synonyms, codes, and code system. The analysis of study data is greatly facilitated by the use of controlled terms for clinical or scientific concepts that have standard, predefined meanings and representations. WHO Drug Dictionary contains unique codes as drug names and corresponding medicinal product information, including active ingredients and the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system for the therapeutic uses. Typically, sponsors and applicants use WHO Drug Dictionary to code and analyze concomitant medications taken by subjects during the course of clinical trials.

    Although use of WHO Drug Dictionary codes are not required at this time, FDA now supports and encourages the use of WHO Drug Dictionary coded concomitant medications used in clinical trials. For purposes of this notice, “supported” means the receiving Center has established processes and technology to support receiving, processing, reviewing, and archiving files in the specified standard.

    FDA is now encouraging sponsors and applicants to provide WHO Drug Dictionary codes for concomitant medication data in investigational studies provided in regulatory submissions (e.g., investigational new drug applications, new drug applications, abbreviated new drug applications, and biologics license applications). The codes should include the drug product trade name where available, the active ingredient(s) and the ATC class.

    II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments regarding this notice to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: March 23, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07269 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-D-0839] Target Animal Safety Data Presentation and Statistical Analysis; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry #226 entitled “Target Animal Safety Data Presentation and Statistical Analysis.” The purpose of this document is to provide recommendations to industry regarding the presentation and statistical analyses of target animal safety (TAS) data submitted to the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) as part of a study report to support approval of a new animal drug. These recommendations apply to TAS data generated from both TAS and field effectiveness studies conducted in companion animals (e.g., dogs, cats, and horses) and food animals (e.g., swine, ruminants, fish, and poultry).

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Virginia Recta, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-164), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-0840, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry #226 entitled “Target Animal Safety Data Presentation and Statistical Analysis.” It is intended to provide recommendations to industry regarding the presentation and statistical analyses of TAS data submitted to CVM as part of a study report to support approval of a new animal drug. These recommendations apply to TAS data generated from both TAS and field effectiveness studies conducted in companion animals (e.g., dogs, cats, and horses) and food animals (e.g., swine, ruminants, fish, and poultry).

    II. Significance of Guidance

    This level 1 draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Target Animal Safety Data Presentation and Statistical Analysis.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 514 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0032.

    IV. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    V. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07264 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request

    Title: Same-sex relationships: Updates to Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education.

    OMB No.: New Collection

    Description: The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) will examine how healthy marriage programs currently approach, and could approach, serving sexual minority populations, that is, lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. ACF expects to collect and analyze data from a range of information collection efforts—including interviews with program administrators, program managers, healthy marriage and relationship programming experts, and focus groups with program applicants and program attendees—to propose methods and practices for serving such couples/individuals/youth.

    Respondents: Current healthy marriage program applicants and participants, program managers and facilitators, and experts in the field.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Total/annual number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Annual burden hours
    Focus Group Guide for Program Applicants 30 1 1.5 45 Focus Group Guide for Program Attendees 60 1 1.5 90 Focus Group Guide for Program Attendees 60 1 1.5 90 Interview Guide for Program Managers 6 1 1 6 Interview Guide for Program Facilitators 12 1 1 12 Interview Guide for Program Experts 12 1 1 12

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 255.

    In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. Email address: [email protected] All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

    The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

    Karl Koerper, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07316 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-73-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; NIH Loan Repayment Program (Clinical and Pediatric Researchers).

    Date: April 24, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Keystone Building, 530 Davis Drive, Suite 3118, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: RoseAnne M McGee, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research and Training, Nat. Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, P.O. Box 12233, MD EC-30, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 (919) 541-0752, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.115, Biometry and Risk Estimation—Health Risks from Environmental Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances—Basic Research and Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower Development in the Environmental Health Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied Toxicological Research and Testing, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 25, 2015. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07249 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0563] Odalys Fernandez: Debarment Order AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) debarring Odalys Fernandez from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application for a period of 6 years. FDA bases this order on a finding that Ms. Fernandez was convicted of five felony counts under Federal law for conduct involving health care fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, and that this pattern of conduct is sufficient to find that there is reason to believe she may violate requirements under the FD&C Act relating to drug products. Ms. Fernandez was given notice of the proposed debarment and an opportunity to request a hearing within the timeframe prescribed by regulation. Ms. Fernandez failed to request a hearing. Ms. Fernandez's failure to request a hearing constitutes a waiver of her right to a hearing concerning this action.

    DATES:

    This order is effective March 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit applications for termination of debarment to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kenny Shade, Division of Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and Import Operations, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr. (ELEM-4144), Rockville, MD 20857, 301-796-4640.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Section 306(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I)) permits debarment of an individual if FDA finds that the individual has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct which involves bribery, payment of illegal gratuities, fraud, perjury, false statement, racketeering, blackmail, extortion, falsification or destruction of records, or interference with, obstruction of an investigation into, or prosecution of any criminal offense, and FDA finds, on the basis of the conviction and other information, that such individual has demonstrated a pattern of conduct sufficient to find that there is reason to believe the individual may violate requirements under the FD&C Act relating to drug products.

    On November 9, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered judgment against Ms. Fernandez after a jury found her guilty of five counts of health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1347, and one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349.

    FDA's finding that debarment is appropriate is based on the felony convictions referenced herein. The factual basis for these convictions is as follows: Ms. Fernandez was a registered nurse working for Ideal Home Health Inc. (Ideal), which was a business in Miami-Dade County, FL. Ideal purportedly provided skilled nursing services to Medicare beneficiaries who required home health services. As a registered nurse in the home health field, it was Ms. Fernandez's duty to provide skilled nursing services to patients and maintain proper documentation of all treatments provided to patients.

    From on or about August 17, 2007, through on or about March 19, 2009, Ms. Fernandez conspired with others to defraud Medicare.

    Ms. Fernandez and her coconspirators submitted, and caused the submission of, false and fraudulent claims to Medicare, and concealed the submission of these false and fraudulent claims.

    Ms. Fernandez and her coconspirators falsified and caused Medicare beneficiaries to falsify weekly visit/time record sheets, and falsified skilled nursing progress notes representing that she had administered insulin injections and provided other medical services to Medicare beneficiaries. She caused Ideal to submit false and fraudulent claims to Medicare for home health benefits by falsely representing that she had provided these health services. As a result of these fraudulent claims, she caused Medicare to make payments to Ideal of approximately $82,040. Ms. Fernandez engaged in this criminal conduct repeatedly over a period of approximately 19 months.

    As a result of her convictions, on September 8, 2014, FDA sent Ms. Fernandez a notice by certified mail proposing to debar her for 6 years from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. The proposal was based on the finding, under section 306(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I) of the FD&C Act, that Ms. Fernandez was convicted of felonies under Federal law for conduct involving health care fraud and conspiracy to commit health care fraud, and the Agency found, on the basis of the conviction and other information, that Ms. Fernandez had demonstrated a pattern of conduct sufficient to find that there is reason to believe she may violate requirements under the FD&C Act relating to drug products. This conclusion was based on the fact that Ms. Fernandez had legal and professional obligations to ensure that she submitted accurate medical claims for services she provided. Instead, Ms. Fernandez submitted, and caused the submission of, false weekly visit/time records and false daily blood sugar/insulin log sheets. She engaged in this conduct repeatedly over a period of almost 2 years. Her convictions indicate that she knowingly and willfully disregarded her legal and professional obligations to keep accurate medical records and to submit accurate claims for the services she provided. Having considered the conduct that forms the basis of her conviction and the fact that this conduct occurred in the course of her profession and showed a disregard for the obligations of her profession and the law, FDA found that Ms. Fernandez has demonstrated a pattern of conduct sufficient to find that there is reason to believe that, if she were to provide services to a person that has an approved or pending drug application, she may violate requirements under the FD&C Act relating to drug products. The proposal offered Ms. Fernandez an opportunity to request a hearing, providing her with 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request, and advised her that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver of the opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this action. The proposal was received on September 12, 2014. Ms. Fernandez failed to respond within the timeframe prescribed by regulation and has, therefore, waived her opportunity for a hearing and has waived any contentions concerning her debarment (21 CFR part 12).

    II. Findings and Order

    Therefore, the Director, Office of Enforcement and Import Operations, Office of Regulatory Affairs, under section 306(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I) of the FD&C Act, under authority delegated to the Director (Staff Manual Guide 1410.35), finds that Odalys Fernandez has been convicted of five counts of a felony and one count of conspiracy to commit a felony under Federal law for conduct involving health care fraud and, on the basis of the conviction and other information, finds that Ms. Fernandez has demonstrated a pattern of conduct sufficient to find that there is reason to believe she may violate requirements under the FD&C Act relating to drug products.

    Based on the factors under section 306(c)(2)(A)(iii) of the FD&C Act, FDA finds that each offense be accorded a debarment period of 3 years. In the case of a person debarred for multiple offenses, FDA shall determine whether the periods of debarment shall run concurrently or consecutively (section 306(c)(2)(A)). FDA has concluded that the 3-year periods of debarment for the five counts of health care fraud shall run concurrently. The 3-year period of debarment for the conspiracy conviction shall run consecutively to the periods of debarment for health care fraud convictions, resulting in a total debarment period of 6 years.

    As a result of the foregoing findings, Odalys Fernandez is debarred for 6 years from providing services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application under sections 505, 512, or 802 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382), or under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), effective (see DATES)(see sections 201(dd), 306(c)(1)(B), and 306(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act, (21 U.S.C. 321(dd), 335a(c)(1)(B), and 335a(c)(2)(A)(ii)). Any person with an approved or pending drug product application who knowingly employs or retains as a consultant or contractor, or otherwise uses the services of Ms. Fernandez in any capacity during her debarment, will be subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(6) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335b(a)(6))). If Ms. Fernandez provides services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application during her period of debarment she will be subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(7) of the FD&C Act). In addition, FDA will not accept or review any abbreviated new drug applications submitted by or with the assistance of Odalys Fernandez during her period of debarment (section 306(c)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act).

    Any application by Ms. Fernandez for termination of debarment under section 306(d)(4) of the FD&C Act should be identified with Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0563 and sent to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). All such submissions are to be filed in four copies. The public availability of information in these submissions is governed by 21 CFR 10.20.

    Publicly available submissions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: March 24, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07267 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2010-D-0500] Early Clinical Trials With Live Biotherapeutic Products: Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control Information; Guidance for Industry; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; requests for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a request for additional comments on the chemistry, manufacturing, and control (CMC) information that a sponsor of an investigational new drug application (IND) should provide in its IND in order to meet regulatory requirements when commercially available foods or dietary supplements containing live biotherapeutic products (LBPs) are used as investigational new drugs in early phase clinical trials. The request for additional comments on the CMC information is related to the guidance entitled, “Early Clinical Trials with Live Biotherapeutic Products: Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control Information; Guidance for Industry,” dated February 2012 (February 2012 guidance).

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the requested CMC information by May 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of the February 2012 guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-7800. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.

    Submit electronic comments on the requested CMC information to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jessica T. Walker, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing a request for additional comments on the CMC information that a sponsor of an IND should provide in its IND in order to meet the requirements under § 312.23 (21 CFR 312.23), when commercially available foods or dietary supplements containing LBPs are subject to study as investigational new drugs in early phase clinical trials.

    In the Federal Register of February 21, 2012 (77 FR 9947), FDA announced the publication of a final guidance entitled “Early Clinical Trials with Live Biotherapeutic Products: Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control Information; Guidance for Industry,” dated February 2012. The guidance provides IND sponsors with recommendations regarding CMC information that should be included in IND submissions for early clinical trials with LBPs, including LBPs lawfully marketed as foods or dietary supplements in the United States and proposed for clinical uses regulated under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262). The guidance also outlines the Drug Substance and Drug Product information that should be provided in the CMC section of an IND to meet the requirements under § 312.23 and to support proceeding to clinical evaluation of an LBP in human subjects.

    II. CMC Information

    FDA is considering modifying the February 2012 guidance to address the CMC information that should be provided in an IND, under certain conditions. Specifically, FDA is considering whether to revise the guidance to address when the label on the commercially available product(s) would be considered adequate to satisfy the requirement for CMC information under § 312.23. For example, we are considering whether the label would be adequate to satisfy the CMC information when the following conditions are met: (1) The LBP product that is proposed for investigational use is a commercially available food or dietary supplement; (2) the investigation does not involve a route of administration, dose, patient population, or other factor that significantly increases the risk (or decreases the acceptability of risk) associated with the use of the food or dietary supplement; (3) the investigation is not intended to support a marketing application for a drug claim for the food or dietary supplement; and (4) the investigation is conducted in compliance with the requirements for INDs (part 312), the requirements for review by an institutional review board (21 CFR part 56), and with the requirements for informed consent (21 CFR part 50). FDA is seeking public comment on this issue.

    III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding the requested CMC information to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the February 2012 guidance at either http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07273 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-D-1439] Critical Path Innovation Meetings; Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Critical Path Innovation Meetings.” This guidance describes a Critical Path Innovation Meeting (CPIM), a means by which FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and investigators from industry, academia, government, and patient advocacy groups can communicate to improve efficiency and success in drug development. The goals of the CPIM are to discuss a methodology or technology proposed by the meeting requester and for CDER to provide general advice on how this methodology or technology might enhance drug development. The discussions and background information submitted through the CPIM are nonbinding on both FDA and CPIM requesters.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.

    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alicia Barbieri Stuart, Office of Translational Sciences, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 21, Rm. 4547, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3852.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Critical Path Innovation Meetings.” The guidance describes the purpose and scope of a CPIM and how to request such a meeting. A CPIM provides the opportunity to discuss a methodology or technology proposed by the meeting requester and for CDER to provide general advice on how the methodology or technology might enhance drug development. During a CPIM, CDER will identify some of the larger gaps in existing knowledge that requesters might consider addressing in the course of their work. The discussions and background information submitted through the CPIM are nonbinding on both FDA and CPIM requesters. The CPIM initiative meets Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) V Reauthorization Goal IX.A, “Enhancing Regulatory Science and Expediting Drug Development” by “Promoting Innovation Through Enhanced Communication Between FDA and Sponsors During Drug Development.”

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Critical Path Innovation Meetings.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collection of information in 21 CFR part 312 (investigational new drug applications) has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collection of information in 21 CFR part 314 (new drug applications) has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001. The collection of information resulting from formal meetings between interested persons and FDA has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0429.

    III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: March 24, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07272 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001] Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.

    Name of Committee: Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee.

    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.

    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on May 12, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.

    Location: Hilton Washington DC North/Gaithersburg, The Ballrooms, 620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD 20877. The hotel phone number is 301-977-8900.

    Contact Person: Cindy Hong, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, FAX: 301-847-8533, email: [email protected], or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.

    Agenda: The committee will discuss new drug application (NDA) 206038, lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination tablets for oral use, submitted by Vertex Pharmaceuticals, proposed for the treatment of cystic fibrosis (CF) in patients age 12 years and older who are homozygous for the F508del mutation in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene.

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before April 27, 2015. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before April 17, 2015. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by April 20, 2015.

    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Cindy Hong at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Jill Hartzler Warner, Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07299 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Time-Sensitive Obesity.

    Date: April 27, 2015.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Michele L. Barnard, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 753, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-2542, (301) 594-8898, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Pragmatic Research and Natural Experiments.

    Date: May 6, 2015.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Michele L. Barnard, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 753, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-2542, (301) 594-8898, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 25, 2015. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07255 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension of Certification of Maintenance of Effort on Help America Vote Act, Payments for Protection and Advocacy Systems (P&A Voting Access Narrative Annual Report) AGENCY:

    Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Administration for Community Living, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the information collection requirements relating to the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), Public Law 107-252, title II, subtitle D, section 291, Payments for Protection and Advocacy Systems (P&As Narrative Annual Report).

    DATES:

    Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to: [email protected]

    Submit written comments on the collection of information to Administration for Community Living, 1 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Room 4716, Washington, DC 20001, attention Melvenia Wright.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melvenia Wright, Program Specialist, Administration for Community Living, Washington, DC 20001. Telephone: (202) 357-3486; email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency request or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, ACL is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document. With respect to the following collection of information, ACL invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of ACL's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of ACL's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    The Protection and Advocacy Voting Access Annual Narrative Report from the Protection and Advocacy Systems is required by federal statute and regulation, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), Public Law 107-252, title II, subtitle D, section 291, Payments for Protection and Advocacy to Assure Access for Individuals with Disabilities (42 U.S.C. 15461). The report is provided in writing to the Administration for Community Living, Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AIDD). Each eligible Protection and Advocacy System (P&As) must prepare and submit an annual report at the end of every fiscal year by the 31st of December. The report addresses the activities conducted with the funds provided during the year. The information collected from the annual report will be aggregated into an annual profile of how the P&As have utilized the funds and review the P&As activities carried out for each of the seven mandated area. These areas include full participation in the electoral process; education, training and assistance; advocacy and education around HAVA implementation efforts; training and education of election officials, poll workers and election volunteers regarding the rights of voters with disabilities and best practices; assistance in filing complaints; assistance to State and other governmental entities regarding the physical accessibility of polling places; and obtaining training and technical assistance on voting issues. The PAVA annual narrative report will also provide an overview of the goals and accomplishments for each P&A as well as permit the Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AIDD) to track voting progress to monitor grant activities and create the bi-annual report to Congress.

    ACL estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: 55 Protection and Advocacy Systems (P&A) respond annually which should be an average burden of 20 hours per State per year or a total of 1,100 hours for all states annually.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Kathy Greenlee, Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Aging.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07313 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA's) Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) National Advisory Council will meet on April 15, 2015, from 9:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. (EDT) and will include a session that is closed to the public.

    The closed meeting will include the review of grant applications, which contain budget information, including the description of how an agency prices its services, information on proposed business relationships and subcontracts. Grant applications also contain personal information and contact information on agency principles. Discussion of proposed funding and awardees would be made public prior to the required congressional notification of grant award. Since the closed meeting will include discussion and evaluation of grant applications reviewed by Initial Review Groups and involve an examination of confidential financial and business information as well as personal information concerning the applicants, it will be closed to the public from 9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. as determined by the SAMHSA Administrator, in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (6) and (c)(9)(B) and 5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(d).

    The open session of the meeting will be held from 11:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. and will include consideration of minutes from the SAMHSA CSAT NAC meeting of August 27, 2014, Director's report, discussion of SAMHSA's role regarding treatment of mental illness and substance use disorders, budget update, Pregnant and Postpartum Women and Medication Assisted Treatment panel discussions, and a recovery presentation and discussion.

    The meeting will be held at the SAMHSA building, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Great Falls Conference Room, Rockville, MD 20850. Attendance by the public will be limited to space available and will be limited to the open sessions of the meeting. Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the Council. Written submissions should be forwarded to the contact person on or before April 5, 2015. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled at the conclusion of the meeting. Individuals interested in making oral presentations are encouraged to notify the contact on or before April 5, 2015. Five minutes will be allotted for each presentation.

    The open meeting session may be accessed via telephone. To attend on site, obtain the call-in number and access code, submit written or brief oral comments, or request special accommodations for persons with disabilities, please register on-line at http://nac.samhsa.gov/Registration/meetingsRegistration.aspx, or communicate with SAMHSA's Committee Management Officer, LCDR Holly Berilla (see contact information below).

    Substantive meeting information and a roster of Council members may be obtained either by accessing the SAMHSA Council Web site at: http://www.samhsa.gov/about-us/advisory-councils/csat-national-advisory-council or by contacting LCDR Berilla.

    Substantive program information may be obtained after the meeting by accessing the SAMHSA Council Web site, http://nac.samhsa.gov/, or by contacting LCDR Berilla.

    Council Name: SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse Treatment National Advisory Council.

    Date/Time/Type:

    April 15, 2015, 9:30 a.m.-11:00 a.m. EDT, CLOSED April 15, 2015, 11:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EDT, OPEN

    Place: SAMHSA Building, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Great Falls Conference Room, Rockville, Maryland 20850.

    Contact: LCDR Holly Berilla, Committee Management Officer and Acting Designated Federal Official, CSAT National Advisory Council, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, Maryland 20857 (mail). Telephone: (240) 276-1252. Fax: (240) 276-2252. Email: [email protected]

    Summer King, Statistician, SAMHSA.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07284 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0473] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Irradiation in the Production, Processing, and Handling of Food AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on our proposed collection of certain information. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies must publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and allow 60 days for public comment. This notice invites comments on the information collection provisions of our requirements for food irradiation processors.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, we invite comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    Irradiation in the Production, Processing, and Handling of Food—21 CFR Part 179 (OMB Control Number 0910-0186)—Extension

    Under sections 201(s) and 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 321(s) and 348), food irradiation is subject to regulation under the food additive premarket approval provisions of the FD&C Act. The regulations providing for uses of irradiation in the production, processing, and handling of food are found in part 179 (21 CFR part 179). To ensure safe use of a radiation source, § 179.21(b)(1) requires that the label of sources bear appropriate and accurate information identifying the source of radiation and the maximum (or minimum and maximum) energy of the emitted radiation. Section 179.21(b)(2) requires that the label or accompanying labeling bear adequate directions for installation and use and a statement supplied by us that indicates maximum dose of radiation allowed. Section 179.26(c) requires that the label or accompanying labeling bear a logo and a radiation disclosure statement. Section 179.25(e) requires that food processors who treat food with radiation make and retain, for 1 year past the expected shelf life of the products up to a maximum of 3 years, specified records relating to the irradiation process (e.g., the food treated, lot identification, scheduled process, etc.). The records required by § 179.25(e) are used by our inspectors to assess compliance with the regulation that establishes limits within which radiation may be safely used to treat food. We cannot ensure safe use without a method to assess compliance with the dose limits, and there are no practicable methods for analyzing most foods to determine whether they have been treated with ionizing radiation and are within the limitations set forth in part 179. Records inspection is the only way to determine whether firms are complying with the regulations for treatment of foods with ionizing radiation.

    Description of respondents: Respondents are businesses engaged in the irradiation of food.

    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden 1 21 CFR section Number of record-keepers Number of records per recordkeeper Total annual records Average
  • burden per
  • recordkeeping
  • Total hours
    179.25(e), large processors 4 300 1,200 1 1,200 179.25(e), small processors 4 30 120 1 120 Total 1,320 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

    We base our estimate of burden for the recordkeeping provisions of § 179.25(e) on our experience regulating the safe use of radiation as a direct food additive. The number of firms who process food using irradiation is extremely limited. We estimate that there are four irradiation plants whose business is devoted primarily (i.e., approximately 100 percent) to irradiation of food and other agricultural products. Four other firms also irradiate small quantities of food. We estimate that this irradiation accounts for no more than 10 percent of the business for each of these firms. Therefore, the average estimated burden is based on four facilities devoting 100 percent of their business to food irradiation (4 × 300 hours = 1200 hours for recordkeeping annually), and four facilities devoting 10 percent of their business to food irradiation (4 × 30 hours = 120 hours for recordkeeping annually).

    No burden has been estimated for the labeling requirements in §§ 179.21(b)(1), 179.21(b)(2), and 179.26(c) because the information to be disclosed is information that has been supplied by FDA. Under 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2), the public disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal Government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    Dated: March 23, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07263 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001] Ear, Nose, and Throat Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Amendment of Notice AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an amendment to the notice of meeting of the Ear, Nose, and Throat Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee. This meeting was announced in the Federal Register of March 13, 2015. The amendment is being made to reflect a change in the April 30th Agenda portion of the document. There are no other changes.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patricio Garcia, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1535, Silver Spring MD 20993-0002, [email protected], 301-796-6875, or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington DC area), code EN. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Federal Register of March 13, 2015 (80 FR 13392), FDA announced that a meeting of the Ear, Nose, and Throat Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee would be held on April 30 and May 1, 2015. On page 13393, in the first and second columns, the Agenda portion of the document is changed to read as follows:

    On April 30, 2015, the Agency is adding three Agenda items to the original five agenda items posted in the March 13, 2015, Federal Register document. The three additional items are: Speech Training Aids for the Hearing Impaired (Battery Powered or Non-Patient), Speech Training Aids for the Hearing Impaired (AC-powered and Patient-Contact), and Nasal Septal Button Devices. The committee will discuss and make recommendations regarding the classification of Hearing Protectors, Circumaural Hearing Protectors, Tactile Hearing Aids, Speech Training Aids for the Hearing Impaired (Battery Powered or Non-Patient), Speech Training Aids for the Hearing Impaired (AC-powered and Patient-Contact), Vestibular Analysis, Middle Ear Inflation Devices, and Nasal Septal Button Devices. These devices are considered preamendments devices since they were in commercial distribution prior to May 28, 1976, when the Medical Devices Amendments became effective. Hearing Protectors are currently regulated under the heading, “Protector, Hearing (Insert),” Product Code EWD, as unclassified under the 510(k) premarket notification authority. Circumaural Hearing Protectors are currently regulated under the heading, “Protector, Hearing (Circumaural),” Product Code EWE, as unclassified under the 510(k) premarket notification authority. Tactile Hearing Aid Devices are currently regulated under the heading, “Hearing Aid, Tactile,” Product Code LRA, as unclassified under the 510(k) premarket notification authority. Speech Training Aids for the Hearing Impaired (Battery Powered or Non-Patient) are currently regulated under the heading, “Aids, Speech Training For The Hearing Impaired (Battery-Operated or Non-Patient),” Product Code LFA, as unclassified under the 510(k) premarket notification authority. Speech Training Aids for the Hearing Impaired (AC-Powered and Patient-Contact) are currently regulated under the heading, “Aids, Speech Training For The Hearing Impaired (AC-Powered and Patient-Contact),” Product Code LEZ, as unclassified under the 510(k) premarket notification authority. Vestibular Analysis Apparatuses are currently regulated under the heading, “Apparatus, Vestibular Analysis,” Product Code LXV, as unclassified under the 510(k) premarket notification authority. Middle Ear Inflation Devices are currently regulated under the heading, “Device, Inflation, Middle Ear,” Product Code MJV, as unclassified under the 510(k) premarket notification authority. Nasal Septal Button Devices are currently regulated under the heading, “Button, Nasal Septal,” Product Code LFB, as unclassified under the 510(k) premarket notification authority. FDA is seeking committee input on the risks, safety and effectiveness, and the regulatory classification of Hearing Protectors, Circumaural Hearing Protectors, Tactile Hearing Aids, Speech Training Aids for the Hearing Impaired (Battery Powered or Non-Patient), Speech Training Aids for the Hearing Impaired (AC-Powered and Patient-Contact), Vestibular Analysis, Middle Ear Inflation Devices, and Nasal Septal Button Devices.

    On May 1, 2015, the committee will discuss key issues related to a potential pre- to postmarket shift in clinical data requirements for modifications to cochlear implants in pediatric patients. These issues are categorized into three broad areas for discussion:

    1. Cochlear implant changes (e.g. sound processing features, patient characteristics) that may be suitable for this pre- to postmarket shift in clinical data requirements.

    2. Appropriate premarket clinical data requirements to support pre- to postmarket shift (e.g. leveraging clinical data from adults and/or older children.)

    3. Clinical study design considerations (e.g. study endpoints and test metrics, subject characteristics) for postmarket studies to confirm safety and effectiveness and inform future labeling.

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to the advisory committees.

    Dated: March 24, 2015. Jill Hartzler Warner, Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07300 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-F-0171] Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Food Labeling; Calorie Labeling of Articles of Food in Vending Machines AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Food Labeling; Calorie Labeling of Articles of Food in Vending Machines” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On February 5, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Food Labeling; Calorie Labeling of Articles of Food in Vending Machines” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0782. The approval expires on March 31, 2018. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07265 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-D-0868] Development and Submission of Near Infrared Analytical Procedures; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Development and Submission of Near Infrared Analytical Procedures.” This draft guidance provides recommendations to applicants of new drug applications (NDAs) and abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) regarding the development and submission of near infrared (NIR) analytical procedures used during the manufacture and analysis of pharmaceuticals. This draft guidance only pertains to the development and validation of NIR analytical procedures and does not provide recommendations concerning the set up and qualification of NIR instruments or their maintenance and calibration.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John L. Smith, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1757.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Development and Submission of Near Infrared Analytical Procedures.” This draft guidance provides recommendations to applicants of NDAs and ANDAs regarding the development and submission of NIR analytical procedures used during the manufacture and analysis of pharmaceuticals (including raw materials, in-process materials and intermediates, and finished products). It also provides recommendations regarding how the concepts described in the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) guidance for industry, “Q2(R1) Validation of Analytical Procedures: Text and Methodology” (http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm265700.htm) and “PAT—A Framework for Innovative Pharmaceutical Development, Manufacturing, and Quality Assurance” (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/ucm070305.pdf) can be applied to the development, validation, and submission of NIR analytical procedures.

    This draft guidance only pertains to the development and validation of NIR analytical procedures and does not provide recommendations concerning the set up and qualification of NIR instruments or their maintenance and calibration.

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on the submission and development of NIR analytical procedures. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 for NDAs, ANDAs, supplements to applications, and annual reports have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001.

    III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07266 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Notice for Public Comment on the Title IV-E Adoption Assistance Program's Suspension and Termination Policies AGENCY:

    Children's Bureau; Administration on Children, Youth and Families; ACF, HHS

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with title IV-E of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673), the Children's Bureau (CB) announces the opportunity for public comment on our suspension and termination policies for the title IV-E adoption assistance program, articulated in the Child Welfare Policy Manual. We similarly announce the opportunity to provide public comment about any other policy areas of concern relating to the title IV-E adoption assistance program.

    DATES:

    Submit written or electronic comments on or before June 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons may submit comments to http://www.regulations.gov/. We urge you to submit comments electronically to ensure they are received in a timely manner. Written comments may also be submitted to Kathleen McHugh, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Policy Division, 8th Floor, 1250 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathleen McHugh, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Policy Division, 8th Floor, 1250 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20024. Email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Social Security Act only permits a title IV-E agency to terminate a child or youth's title IV-E adoption assistance subsidy under three delineated circumstances: (1) The child has attained the age of 18, or the age that the agency has chosen pursuant to sec. 475(8)(B)(iii) and (iv) of the Social Security Act (or the age of 21 if the title IV-E agency has determined that the child has a mental or physical disability which would warrant continuation of assistance); (2) the title IV-E agency determines that the adoptive parents are no longer legally responsible for support of the child; or (3) the title IV-E agency determines that the adoptive parents are no longer providing any support to the child.

    CB has interpreted the law to prohibit a title IV-E agency from automatically suspending a title IV-E adoption assistance payment on the basis that suspending title IV-E adoption assistance is equivalent to terminating title IV-E adoption assistance. See Child Welfare Policy Manual, section 8.2D.5, Question and Answer #3 (available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cwpm/programs/cb/laws_policies/laws/cwpm/policy_dsp.jsp?citID=82#747).

    The statute also requires adoptive parents to keep the title IV-E agency apprised of any circumstances that would impact a child's continued eligibility for title IV-E adoption assistance, or would impact the appropriate amount of the payment. See the Social Security Act at sec. 473(a)(4)(B). However, the statute does not specify a recourse for title IV-E agencies if a parent does not provide such information. CB has explained in the Child Welfare Policy Manual that title IV-E agencies may not suspend or terminate title IV-E adoption assistance if adoptive parents do not respond to requests for information about whether the parents are providing any support to the child, or whether the adoptive parents remain legally responsible for their adopted child. See Child Welfare Policy Manual, section 8.2, Question and Answer #1 (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cwpm/programs/cb/laws_policies/laws/cwpm/policy_dsp.jsp?citID=63).

    We seek comment from title IV-E agencies and other stakeholders about the title IV-E adoption assistance suspension and termination policies. We invite agencies and stakeholders to share their experiences and concerns about how title IV-E agencies implement the suspension and termination policies, and any difficulties they have had ensuring that they are paying title IV-E adoption assistance funds appropriately.

    In particular, we encourage respondents to address the following questions:

    (1) Should jurisdictions have authority to suspend adoption assistance payments under any circumstances? If so, what specific circumstances should be the basis for suspension?

    (2) If suspension was to be permitted, what processes should be required in connection with suspension, and what processes should be required for reinstatement?

    More generally, we invite title IV-E agencies and other stakeholders to share their broader concerns about the title IV-E adoption assistance program that are unrelated to suspending or terminating adoption assistance payments.

    Dated: March 23, 2015. Mark H. Greenberg, Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07389 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-29-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0001] Agency Information Collection Activities: Cargo Manifest/Declaration, Stow Plan, Container Status Messages and Importer Security Filing AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice and request for comments; revision and extension of an existing collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Cargo Manifest/Declaration, Stow Plan, Container Status Messages and Importer Security Filing. CBP is proposing to add burden hours for four new collections of information, including Electronic Ocean Export Manifest, Electronic Air Export Manifest, Electronic Rail Export Manifest, and Vessel Stow Plan (Export). There are no changes to the existing forms or collections within this OMB approval. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be received on or before June 1, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn: Tracey Denning, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3507). The comments should address: (a) Whether the 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 estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden, including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual costs burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document, CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

    Title: Cargo Manifest/Declaration, Stow Plan, Container Status Messages and Importer Security Filing.

    OMB Number: 1651-0001.

    Form Numbers: Forms 1302, 1302A, 7509, 7533.

    Abstract: This OMB approval includes the following existing information collections: CBP Form 1302 (or electronic equivalent); CBP Form 1302A (or electronic equivalent); CBP Form 7509 (or electronic equivalent); CBP Form 7533 (or electronic equivalent); Manifest Confidentiality; Vessel Stow Plan (Import); Container Status Messages; and Importer Security Filing. CBP is proposing to add new information collections for Electronic Ocean Export Manifest; Electronic Air Export Manifest; Electronic Rail Export Manifest; and Vessel Stow Plan (Export). Specific information regarding these collections of information is as follows:

    CBP Form 1302: The master or commander of a vessel arriving in the United States from abroad with cargo on board must file CBP Form 1302, Inward Cargo Declaration, or submit the information on this form using a CBP-approved electronic equivalent. CBP Form 1302 is part of the manifest requirements for vessels entering the United States and was agreed upon by treaty at the United Nations Inter-government Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO). This form and/or electronic equivalent, is provided for by 19 CFR 4.5, 4.7, 4.7a, 4.8, 4.33, 4.34, 4.38, 4.84, 4.85, 4.86, 4.91, 4.93 and 4.99 and is accessible at: http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CBP%20Form%201302_0.pdf.

    CBP Form 1302A: The master or commander of a vessel departing from the United States must file CBP Form 1302A, Cargo Declaration Outward With Commercial Forms, or CBP-approved electronic equivalent, with copies of bills of lading or equivalent commercial documents relating to all cargo encompassed by the manifest. This form and/or electronic equivalent, is provided for by 19 CFR 4.62, 4.63, 4.75, 4.82, and 4.87-4.89 and is accessible at: http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CBP%20Form%201302_0.pdf.

    Electronic Ocean Export Manifest: CBP will begin a pilot in 2015 to electronically collect ocean export manifest information. This information will be transmitted to CBP in advance via the Automated Export System (AES) within the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). The data elements to be transmitted may include the following:

    • Name of the vessel or carrier

    • Name and address of the shipper

    • Port Where the Report is Made

    • Nationality of the Ship

    • Name of the Master

    • Port of Loading

    • Port of Discharge

    • B/L Number (Master and House)

    • Marks and Numbers

    • Container numbers

    • Seal Numbers

    • Number and Kinds of Packages

    • Description of Goods

    • Gross Weight (lb. or kg)

    • Measurement (per HTSUS)

    • In-bond number

    • AES ITN number or Exemption statement

    • Split shipment indicator

    • Port of split shipment

    • Hazmat Indicator

    • Chemical Abstract Service ID Number

    • Vehicle Identification Number or Product Identification Number

    • Mode of transportation (containerized or non-containerized)

    CBP Form 7509: The aircraft commander or agent must file Form 7509, Air Cargo Manifest, with CBP at the departure airport, or respondents may submit the information on this form using a CBP-approved electronic equivalent. CBP Form 7509 contains information about the cargo onboard the aircraft. This form, and/or electronic equivalent, is provided for by 19 CFR 122.35, 122.48, 122.48a, 122.52, 122.54, 122.73, 122.113, and 122.118, and is accessible at: http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CBP%20Form%207509_0.pdf.

    Electronic Air Export Manifest: CBP will begin a pilot in 2015 to electronically collect air export manifest information. This information will be transmitted to CBP in advance via ACE's AES. The data elements to be transmitted may include the following:

    • Exporting Carrier

    • Marks of nationality and registration

    • Flight Number

    • Port of Lading

    • Port of Unlading

    • Scheduled date of departure

    • Consolidator

    • De-Consolidator

    • Air Waybill type (Master, House, Simple, or Sub)

    • Air Waybill Number

    • Number of pieces and unit of measure

    • Weight (lb. or kg.)

    • Number of house air waybills

    • Shipper name and address

    • Consignee name and address

    • Cargo description

    • AES ITN number or AES Exemption statement

    • Split air waybill indicator

    • Hazmat indicator

    • UN Number

    • In-bond number

    • Mode of transportation (containerized or non-containerized)

    CBP Form 7533: The master or person in charge of a conveyance files CBP Form 7533, INWARD CARGO MANIFEST FOR VESSEL UNDER FIVE TONS, FERRY, TRAIN, CAR, VEHICLE, ETC, which is required for a vehicle or a vessel of less than 5 net tons arriving in the United States from Canada or Mexico, otherwise than by sea, with baggage or merchandise. Respondents may also submit the information on this form using a CBP-approved electronic equivalent. CBP Form 7533, and/or electronic equivalent, is provided for by 19 CFR 123.4, 123.7, 123.61, 123.91, and 123.92, and is accessible at: http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CBP%20Form%207533_0.pdf.

    Electronic Rail Export Manifest: CBP will begin a pilot in 2015 to electronically collect the rail export manifest information. This information will be transmitted to CBP in advance via ACE's AES. The data elements to be transmitted may include the following:

    • Manifest number

    • Mode of transportation (containerized or non-containerized)

    • Port of Departure from the United States

    • Date of Departure

    • Train Number

    • Rail car order/Car locator message

    • Hazmat Indicator

    • 6-character Hazmat code

    • Marks and Numbers

    • SCAC (Standard Carrier Alpha Code) identification code for exporting carrier

    • Bill of Lading Number (Master and House)

    • Shipper name and address

    • Consignee name and address

    • Notify Party name and address

    • AES ITN or AES Exemption Statement

    • Cargo Description

    • Weight

    • Quantity and Unit of Measure

    • Split Shipment Indicator

    • Portion of Split Shipment

    • In-bond number

    • Seal Number

    • Mexican Pedimento Number

    • Place where the rail carrier takes possession of the cargo shipment

    • Port of Unlading

    • Container Numbers (for containerized shipments) or the rail car numbers

    • Data for empty rail cars (Empty indicator and rail car number)

    Manifest Confidentiality: An importer or consignee (inward) or a shipper (outward) may request confidential treatment of its name and address contained in manifests by following the procedure set forth in 19 CFR 103.31.

    Vessel Stow Plan (Import): For all vessels transporting goods to the United States, except for any vessel exclusively carrying bulk cargo, the incoming carrier is required to electronically submit a vessel stow plan no later than 48 hours after the vessel departs from the last foreign port that includes information about the vessel and cargo. For voyages less than 48 hours in duration, CBP must receive the vessel stow plan prior to arrival at the first port in the U.S. The vessel stow plan is provided for by 19 CFR 4.7c.

    Vessel Stow Plan (Export): CBP will begin a pilot in 2015 to electronically collect a vessel stow plan for vessels transporting goods from the United States, except for any vessels exclusively carrying bulk cargo. The exporting carrier will electronically submit a vessel stow plan in advance.

    Container Status Messages (CSMs): For all containers destined to arrive within the limits of a U.S. port from a foreign port by vessel, the incoming carrier must submit messages regarding the status of events if the carrier creates or collects a container status message (CSM) in its equipment tracking system reporting an event. CSMs must be transmitted to CBP via a CBP-approved electronic data interchange system. These messages transmit information regarding events such as the status of a container (full or empty); booking a container destined to arrive in the United States; loading or unloading a container from a vessel; and a container arriving or departing the United States. CSMs are provided for by 19 CFR 4.7d.

    Importer Security Filing (ISF): For most cargo arriving in the United States by vessel, the importer, or its authorized agent, must submit the data elements listed in 19 CFR 149.3 via a CBP-approved electronic interchange system within prescribed time frames. Transmission of these data elements provide CBP with advance information about the shipment.

    Current Actions: CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with a change to the burden hours resulting from proposed new information collections associated with the Electronic Ocean Export Manifest, Electronic Air Export Manifest, Electronic Rail Export Manifest, and Vessel Stow Plan (Export). There are no changes to the existing information collections under this OMB approval. The burden hours are listed in the chart below.

    Type of Review: Revision and Extension.

    Affected Public: Businesses.

    Collection Total burden hours Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Time per
  • response
  • Air Cargo Manifest (CBP Form 7509) 366,600 260 5,640 1,466,400 15 minutes. Inward Cargo Manifest for Truck, Rail, Vehicles, Vessels, etc. (CBP Form 7533) 962,940 33,000 291.8 9,629,400 6 minutes. Inward Cargo Declaration (CBP Form 1302) 1,500,000 10,000 300 3,000,000 30 minutes. Cargo Declaration Outward With Commercial Forms (CBP Form 1302A) 10,000 500 400 200,000 3 minutes. Importer Security Filing 17,739,000 240,000 33.75 8,100,000 2.19 hours. Vessel Stow Plan (Import) 31,803 163 109 17,767 1.79 hours. Vessel Stow Plan (Export) 31,803 163 109 17,767 1.79 hours. Container Status Messages 23,996 60 4,285,000 257,100,000 0.0056 minutes. Request for Manifest Confidentiality 1,260 5,040 1 5,040 15 minutes. Electronic Air Export Manifest 121,711 260 5,640 1,466,400 5 minutes. Electronic Ocean Export Manifest 5,000 500 400 200,000 1.5 minutes. Electronic Rail Export Manifest 2,490 50 300 15,000 10 minutes. Total 20,796,603 289,996 281,217,774
    Dated: March 23, 2015. Tracey Denning, Agency Clearance Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07275 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0075] Agency Information Collection Activities: Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the Act, Forms I-864; I-864A; I-864EZ; I-864W; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the Federal Register on January 27, 2015, at 80 FR 4297, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did receive 1 comment in connection with the 60-day notice.

    DATES:

    The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 30, 2015. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at [email protected] Comments may also be submitted via fax at (202) 395-5806. All submissions received must include the agency name and the OMB Control Number 1615-0075.

    You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2007-0029 in the search box. We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Laura Dawkins, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number 202-272-8377.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Note:

    The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at: https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/Dashboard.do, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

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

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Affidavit of Support under Section 213A of the Act.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: Forms I-864; I-864A; I-864EZ; I-864W; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. These forms are used by family-based and certain employment-based immigrants to have the petitioning relative execute an Affidavit of Support on their behalf.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-864, 439,500 responses at 6 hours per response; Form I-864A, 215,800 responses at 1.75 hours per response; Form I-864EZ, 100,000 responses at 2.5 hours per response; Form I-864W, 1,000 responses at 1 hour per response.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 3,265,650 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated cost burden for this collection is $132,177,500.

    Dated: March 18, 2015. Laura Dawkins, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06732 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5789-N-04] Notice of Regulatory Waiver Requests Granted for the Fourth Quarter of Calendar Year 2014 AGENCY:

    Office of the General Counsel, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Section 106 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (the HUD Reform Act) requires HUD to publish quarterly Federal Register notices of all regulatory waivers that HUD has approved. Each notice covers the quarterly period since the previous Federal Register notice. The purpose of this notice is to comply with the requirements of section 106 of the HUD Reform Act. This notice contains a list of regulatory waivers granted by HUD during the period beginning on October 1, 2014, and ending on December 31, 2014.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For general information about this notice, contact Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 10282, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone 202-708-1793 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing- or speech-impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    For information concerning a particular waiver that was granted and for which public notice is provided in this document, contact the person whose name and address follow the description of the waiver granted in the accompanying list of waivers that have been granted in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2014.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act added a new section 7(q) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(q)), which provides that:

    1. Any waiver of a regulation must be in writing and must specify the grounds for approving the waiver;

    2. Authority to approve a waiver of a regulation may be delegated by the Secretary only to an individual of Assistant Secretary or equivalent rank, and the person to whom authority to waive is delegated must also have authority to issue the particular regulation to be waived;

    3. Not less than quarterly, the Secretary must notify the public of all waivers of regulations that HUD has approved, by publishing a notice in the Federal Register. These notices (each covering the period since the most recent previous notification) shall:

    a. Identify the project, activity, or undertaking involved;

    b. Describe the nature of the provision waived and the designation of the provision;

    c. Indicate the name and title of the person who granted the waiver request;

    d. Describe briefly the grounds for approval of the request; and

    e. State how additional information about a particular waiver may be obtained.

    Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act also contains requirements applicable to waivers of HUD handbook provisions that are not relevant to the purpose of this notice.

    This notice follows procedures provided in HUD's Statement of Policy on Waiver of Regulations and Directives issued on April 22, 1991 (56 FR 16337). In accordance with those procedures and with the requirements of section 106 of the HUD Reform Act, waivers of regulations are granted by the Assistant Secretary with jurisdiction over the regulations for which a waiver was requested. In those cases in which a General Deputy Assistant Secretary granted the waiver, the General Deputy Assistant Secretary was serving in the absence of the Assistant Secretary in accordance with the office's Order of Succession.

    This notice covers waivers of regulations granted by HUD from October 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014. For ease of reference, the waivers granted by HUD are listed by HUD program office (for example, the Office of Community Planning and Development, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, the Office of Housing, and the Office of Public and Indian Housing, etc.). Within each program office grouping, the waivers are listed sequentially by the regulatory section of title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that is being waived. For example, a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 58 would be listed before a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 570.

    Where more than one regulatory provision is involved in the grant of a particular waiver request, the action is listed under the section number of the first regulatory requirement that appears in 24 CFR and that is being waived. For example, a waiver of both § 58.73 and § 58.74 would appear sequentially in the listing under § 58.73.

    Waiver of regulations that involve the same initial regulatory citation are in time sequence beginning with the earliest-dated regulatory waiver.

    Should HUD receive additional information about waivers granted during the period covered by this report (the fourth quarter of calendar year 2014) before the next report is published (the first quarter of calendar year 2015), HUD will include any additional waivers granted for the fourth quarter in the next report.

    Accordingly, information about approved waiver requests pertaining to HUD regulations is provided in the Appendix that follows this notice.

    Dated: March 24, 2015. Tonya T. Robinson, Principal Deputy General Counsel. APPENDIX Listing of Waivers of Regulatory Requirements Granted by Offices of the Department of Housing and Urban Development October 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 Note to Reader:

    More information about the granting of these waivers, including a copy of the waiver request and approval, may be obtained by contacting the person whose name is listed as the contact person directly after each set of regulatory waivers granted.

    The regulatory waivers granted appear in the following order:

    I. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Community Planning and Development.

    II. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Housing.

    III. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Public and Indian Housing.

    I. Regulatory Waivers Granted by the Office of Community Planning and Development

    For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 58.22(a).

    Project/Activity: The Spokane Tribe of Indians requested a waiver of 24 CFR 58.22(a) for the demolition and new construction of the West End Community Center serving the Spokane Tribe in Wellpinit, WA. The waiver requested clearance for the demolition of the old community center prior to the Request for Release of Funds (RROF).

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 58.22(a) provides that no entity may commit HUD assistance under a program listed in § 58.1(b) on any activity or project until HUD or the state has approved the recipient's RROF. In addition, until the RROF has been approved, no entity may commit non-HUD funds on an activity listed in § 58.1(b) if the activity would have an adverse environmental impact. Since the commitment of non-HUD funds violates only the regulation and not the statute, HUD may, if there is good cause, grant a waiver of the affected regulation. A waiver is required because the Spokane Tribe committed non-HUD funds to demolish the old West End Community Center facility prior to receiving an approved RROF.

    Granted By: Clifford Taffet, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.

    Date Granted: December 10, 2014.

    Reason Waived: It was determined that the project would further the HUD mission and advance HUD program goals to develop viable, quality communities. It was further determined that the Spokane Tribe of Indians did not knowingly violate the regulation, no HUD funds were committed, and based on the environmental assessment and field inspection, granting the waiver will not result in any unmitigated, adverse environmental impact.

    Contact: Lauren Hayes, Office of Environment and Energy, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7248, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-4270.

    • Regulations: 24 CFR 92.251(c) and 24 CFR 92.504(d).

    Project/Activity: HUD, along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Treasury, developed the Physical Inspection Alignment Pilot Program to align physical inspection criteria and reduce the number of inspections for each property to no more than one visit per year while meeting the requirements of each federal funding source with a vested financial interest in the property. The waiver permitted pilot grantees to use the Uniform Physical Condition Standards as the minimum inspection standard for HOME-assisted rental property rather than Housing Quality Standards as currently required by 24 CFR 92.251(c) and allows for more frequent inspections than are required for inspection frequency under 24 CFR 92.504(d). The following participating jurisdictions were granted a limited waiver of HOME property standards for participating in HUD's Physical Inspections Alignment Pilot Program: the State of Kentucky, the State of Louisiana, the State of Minnesota, the State of Missouri, the State of New Mexico, the State of Texas, the State of Wisconsin and the State of Vermont.

    Nature of Requirements: The regulation at 24 CFR 92.251(c) identifies the property standards for property acquired with HOME assistance. The regulation at 24 CFR 92.504(d) requires the participating jurisdiction to inspect each project at project completion and during the period of affordability to determine that the project meets the property standards of 24 CFR 92.251.

    Granted By: Clifford Taffet, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.

    Date Granted: November 5, 2014.

    Reasons Waived: The waiver was granted to reduce duplicative inspection for grantees participating in the Physical Inspection Alignment Pilot Program. HUD estimates that one periodically-scheduled physical inspection may result in 20,000 fewer property inspections per year by federal agencies, which will reduce the cost of program oversight and create efficiencies for the government, property owners, and for residents of affordable housing whose apartments are subject to inspection. The waiver was effective until December 31, 2014 and limited to Combined Funding Properties included in the 2014 Physical Inspection Alignment Pilot Program.

    Contact: Virginia Sardone, Director, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7164, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-2684.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 570.200(h).

    Project/Activity: On October 21, 2014, HUD issued a CPD Notice implementing procedures to govern the submission and review of consolidated plans and action plans for FY 2015 funding prior to the enactment of a FY 2015 HUD appropriation bill. These procedures apply to any Entitlement, Insular or Hawaii nonentitlement grantee with a program year start date prior to, or up to 60 days after, HUD's announcement of the FY 2015 formula program funding allocations for CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA formula funding. Any grantee with an FY 2015 program year start date during the period starting October 1, 2014, and ending August 16, 2015 or 60 days after HUD announcement of FY 2015 allocation amounts (whichever comes first), is advised not to submit its consolidated plan/action plan until the FY 2015 formula allocations have been announced.

    Nature of Requirement: The Entitlement CDBG program regulations provide for situations in which a grantee may incur costs against its CDBG grant prior to the award of its grant from HUD. Under the regulations, the effective date of a grantee's grant agreement is either the grantee's program year start date or the date that the grantee's annual action plan is received by HUD, whichever is later. This waiver allowed grantees to treat the effective date of the FY 2015 program year as the grantee's program year start date or date or the date that the grantee's annual action plan is received by HUD, whichever is earlier.

    Granted By: Clifford Taffet, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.

    Date Granted: September 25, 2014, for effect on October 21, 2014.

    Reason Waived: Under the provisions of the CPD Notice, a grantee's action plan may not be submitted to (and thus received by) HUD until several months after the grantee's program year start date. Lengthy delays in the receipt of annual appropriations by HUD, and implementation of the policy to delay submission of FY 2015 Action Plans, may have negative consequences for CDBG grantees that intend to incur eligible costs prior to the award of FY 2015 funding. Some activities might otherwise be interrupted while implementing these revised procedures. In addition, grantees might not otherwise be able to use CDBG funds for planning and administrative costs of administering their programs. In order to address communities' needs and to ensure that programs can continue without disturbance, this waiver allowed grantees to incur pre-award costs on a timetable comparable to that under which grantees have operated in past years. HUD advised grantees that this waiver is available for use by any applicable CDBG grantee whose action plan submission is delayed past the normal submission date because of delayed enactment of FY 2015 appropriations for the Department. This waiver authority is only in effect until August 16, 2015.

    Contact: Steve Johnson, Director, Entitlement Communities Division, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Office of Community and Planning Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 7282, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-1577.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(l)(vi).

    Project/Activity: Spokane County, WA requested a waiver of 24 CFR 570.208(a)(l)(vi) to allow the use of prior Low and Moderate Income Summary Data (LMISD) for an infrastructure activity in the town of Fairfield in order to demonstrate compliance with the low- and moderate-income benefit national objective requirements.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 570.208(a)(l)(vi) requires that the most recently available decennial census information must be used to the fullest extent feasible, together with the section 8 income limits that would have applied at the time the income information was collected by the Census Bureau, to determine whether there is a sufficiently large percentage of low- and moderate-income persons residing in the area served by a CDBG funded activity. The HUD-produced Low and Moderate Income Summary Data provide this data to grantees. On June 10, 2014, HUD issued new Low and Moderate Income Summary Data, with an effective date of July 1, 2014 for use by grantees.

    Granted By: Clifford Taffet, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.

    Date Granted: November 4, 2014.

    Reason Waived: The Fairfield water line infrastructure activity had been in the planning stage for many months, and was included in the county's FY 2014 Annual Action Plan. However, funds were not obligated by the county to the activity prior to July 1, 2014 and July 1 was the county's program year start date. The service area for this activity no longer qualified under the new LMISD. However, the county explained that the town of Fairfield's demographic characteristics, with a population of 665, almost remained the same since the previous LMISD was issued, and that the American Community Survey (ACS) sampling methodology resulted in this change, not a decrease in the number of low- and moderate-income persons. The urgency of repairing the water lines made it difficult to complete a special survey in time. The county estimated that it would cost close to $20,000 to conduct a survey to demonstrate that the service area of the activity meets the low- and moderate-income area benefit national objective criteria. The waiver allowed the county to continue to use the prior Low and Moderate Income Summary Data to demonstrate compliance with the low- and moderate-income benefit national objective requirements.

    Contact: Steve Johnson, Director, Entitlement Communities Division, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Office of Community and Planning Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7282, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-1577.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(l)(vi).

    Project/Activity: King County, WA requested a waiver of 24 CFR 570.208(a)(l)(vi) to allow the use of prior Low and Moderate Income Summary Data (LMISD) for two infrastructure activities in order to demonstrate compliance with the low- and moderate-income benefit national objective requirements.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 570.208(a)(l)(vi) requires that the most recently available decennial census information must be used to the fullest extent feasible, together with the section 8 income limits that would have applied at the time the income information was collected by the Census Bureau, to determine whether there is a sufficiently large percentage of low- and moderate-income persons residing in the area served by a CDBG funded activity. The HUD-produced Low and Moderate Income Summary Data provide this data to grantees. On June 10, 2014, HUD issued new Low and Moderate Income Summary Data, with an effective date of July 1, 2014 for use by grantees.

    Granted By: Clifford Taffet, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.

    Date Granted: November 18, 2014.

    Reason Waived: The request pertained to two infrastructure activities, which had been in the planning stage for many months, and were included in the county's FY 2014 Annual Action Plan. However, funds were not obligated by the county to these activities prior to July 1, 2014. The county documented that the available Low and Moderate Income Summary Data covered an area larger than the actual service areas for the two activities, and was not representative of the income characteristics of the activity service area residents. It was determined that unless the waiver was granted to the county, these activities that directly benefit the health and safety of residents would not be implemented due to the lack of expertise and funds needed to conduct special surveys to qualify the service areas. The waiver allowed the county to continue to use the prior Low and Moderate Income Summary Data to demonstrate compliance with the low- and moderate-income benefit national objective requirements.

    Contact: Steve Johnson, Director, Entitlement Communities Division, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Office of Community and Planning Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7282, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-1577.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR part 576.403(c).

    Project/Activity: Louisville-Jefferson County, KY Metro Government requested a waiver of § 576.403(c) to allow the Legal Aid Society to provide legal services under the homelessness prevention component to program participants who want to stay in their units, even if the units do not meet the habitability standards. The waiver would allow those program participants receiving the legal services to receive the case management required at § 576.401(d) and (e) even if their units do not meet the habitability standards. The waiver was contingent upon the commitment of the recipient, its subrecipient, Legal Aid Society, and the subrecipient(s) providing the required case management to work with the property owners to bring the units into compliance with the habitability standards or assist the program participants to move if the units are unsafe.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at § 576.403(c) states that the recipient or subrecipient cannot use ESG funds to help a program participant remain in or move into housing that does not meet the ESG minimum habitability standards for permanent housing.

    Granted By: Cliff Taffet, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.

    Date Granted: December 10, 2014.

    Reason Waived: HUD recognized that in certain instances, the best way to help program participants avoid homelessness is to keep them in their housing until better housing can be located, or their existing housing can be brought up to code. Legal services provide an important resource for persons who are at risk of homelessness, who need immediate assistance to help them avoid moving to the streets or emergency shelters. In some instances, it is not feasible to inspect a unit to ensure that it meets the habitability standards prior to the provision of the legal services assistance necessary to prevent homelessness for the individual or family. Also in some cases, the habitability requirement actually prohibits eligible program participants from receiving the legal services that could assist them to make the unit habitable and stabilize them in their housing.

    Contact: Norm Suchar, Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-4300.

    II. Regulatory Waivers Granted by the Office of Housing—Federal Housing Administration (FHA)

    For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 219.220(b).

    Project/Activity: St. James A.M.E Tower Apartments, FHA Project Number 031-018NISUP, Newark, NJ. The Owners have requested deferral of repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Operating Assistance Loan on this project due to their inability to repay the loan in full upon prepayment of the 236 Loan.

    Nature of Requirement: Section 219.220(b)(1995) governs the repayment of operating assistance provided under the Flexible Subsidy Program for Troubled Projects states “Assistance that has been paid to a project owner under this subpart must be repaid at the earlier of expiration of the term of the mortgage, termination of mortgage insurance, prepayment of the mortgage, or a sale of the project (Transfer of Physical Assets (TPA)) if the Secretary so requires at the time of approval of the TPA.” Either of these actions would typically terminate FHA involvement with the property, and the Flexible Subsidy Loan would be repaid, in whole, at that time.

    Granted by: Biniam T. Gebre, Acting Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

    Date Granted: December 30, 2014.

    Reason Waived: The owner requested and was granted waiver of the requirement to defer repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Operating Assistance Loan to allow the much needed preservation and moderate rehabilitation of the project. The project will be preserved as an affordable housing resource of Newark, NJ.

    Contact: John Ardovini, Restructuring Analyst, Office of Affordable Housing Preservation, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-2636.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 219.220(b).

    Project/Activity: CWA Apartments II FHA Number TN43L000016 is a project based Section 8 Loan Management Set-Aside (LMSA) contract encumbering a76-units for low- income families located in Nashville, Tennessee. The project consists of 76 two-bedroom units. The contract expires on August 31, 2017. On September 1, 1994, a Flexible Subsidy Loan was awarded in the amount of $1,659,585 at one percent per annum.

    Nature of Requirement: Section 219.220(b) governs the repayment of operating assistance provided under the Flexible Subsidy Program for Troubled Projects prior to May 1, 1996 states: “Assistance that has been paid to a project owner under this subpart must be repaid at the earlier of the expiration of the term of the mortgage, termination of mortgage insurance, prepayment of the mortgage, or a sale of the project. . .” Either of these actions would typically terminate FHA involvement with the property, and the Flexible Subsidy Loan would be repaid, in whole, at that time.

    Granted by: Carol J. Galante, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

    Date Granted: October 7, 2014.

    Reason Waived: The owner requested and was granted waiver because good cause was shown that it is in the public's best interest to grant this waiver. The owner executed and recorded a Rental Use Agreement that extended the affordability of the property for 20 years and amended the Residual Receipts Note to reflect the monthly payments. These documents were simultaneously assumed by the purchaser.

    Contact: Marilynne Hutchins, Office of Asset Management and Portfolio Oversight (OAMPO), Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6174, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-4323.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 219.220(b).

    Project/Activity: CWA Apartments I Contract number TN43-L000-015 apartments CWA Apartments I is a 176-unit multifamily project which consists of 20 two-bedroom units and 156 three-bedroom units. The property was financed with a mortgage insured pursuant to Section 221(d)(3) of the National Housing Act, which has now matured and is paid in full. The Loan Management Set-Aside (LMSA) Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contract covers all 176 units. The HAP contact expires on August 31, 2017. In 1995, the project was awarded a Flexible Subsidy Loan in the amount of $3,508,629 with one percent interest rate. As of September 29, 2014, the Flexible Subsidy Loan's unpaid balance is $4,141,194, including accrued interest.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 219.220(b)(1995), which governs the repayment of operating assistance provided under the Flexible Subsidy Program for Troubled Projects states, “Assistance that has been paid to a project Owner under this subpart must be repaid at the earlier of expiration of the term of the mortgage, termination of mortgage insurance, prepayment of the mortgage, or a sale of the project.”

    Granted by: Carol J. Galante, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

    Date Granted: October 7, 2014.

    Reason Waived: The owner requested and was granted waiver because good cause was shown that it is in the public's best interest to grant this waiver. The owner executed and recorded a Rental Use Agreement that extended the affordability of the property for 20 years and amended the Residual Receipts Note to reflect the monthly payments. These documents were simultaneously assumed by the purchaser.

    Contact: Marilynne Hutchins, Office of Asset Management and Portfolio Oversight (OAMPO), Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6174, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-4323.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 219.220(b).

    Project/Activity: Cathedral Terrace Apartments FHA number 063-44007 is a 240-unit high-rise project for low- income and very low-income tenants. The mortgage was insured pursuant to Section 236(j)(1) of the National Housing Act and received its final endorsement on November 22, 1974, in the amount of $4,919,500. A Section 8 Loan Management Set-Aside (LMSA) contract subsidizes 224 units and expires on June 30, 2034. The mortgage matured on November 1, 2014, which triggered the repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Loans

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 219.220(b) (1995), which governs the repayment of operating assistance provided under the Flexible Subsidy Program for Troubled Properties, states “Assistance that has been paid to a project Owner under this subpart must be repaid at the earlier of the expiration of the term of the mortgage, termination of mortgage insurance, prepayment of the mortgage, or a sale of the project.”

    Granted by: Biniam Gebre, Acting Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

    Date Granted: December 30, 2014.

    Reason Waived: The owner requested and was granted waiver to permit the deferment of repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Loans, plus accrued interest for a period of one year. The requested waiver was for the subject property only. The owner executed and recorded a Rental Use Agreement that would be superior to all liens. The Rental Use Agreement extended the project affordability 20 years from the date of the original mortgage maturity.

    Contact: Judith Bryant, Office of Asset Management and Portfolio Oversight (OAMPO), Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6174, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-4891.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 232.7.

    Project/Activity: Maple Ride of Plover Memory care is a 20 bed memory care facility. The facility does not meet the FHA “Bathroom “requirements at 24 CFR 232.7. The project is located in Plover, WI.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation mandates in a board and care home or assisted living facility that not less than one full bathroom must be provided for every four residents. Also, the bathroom cannot be accessed from a public corridor or area.

    Granted By: Carol J. Galante, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

    Date Granted: October 7, 2014.

    Reason Waived: The project is for memory care, all rooms have half-bathrooms and the resident to full bathroom ratio is 5:1.

    Contact: Vance T. Morris, Special Assistant, Office of Healthcare Programs, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 2337, Washington, DC 20401, telephone (202) 402-2419.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 232.7.

    Project/Activity: Senior Suites of Urbandale is an assisted living and memory care facility. The facility does not meet the FHA “Bathroom “requirements at 24 CFR 232.7. The project is located in Urbandale, IA.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation mandates that in a board and care home or assisted living facility that the not less than one full bathroom must be provided for every four residents. Also, the bathroom cannot be accessed from a public corridor or area.

    Granted By: Biniam Gebre, Acting, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

    Date Granted: November 24, 2014.

    Reason Waived: The project is currently FHA insured and presents no additional financial risks to HUD.

    Contact: Vance T. Morris, Special Assistant, Office of Healthcare Programs, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 2337, Washington, DC 20401, telephone (202) 402-2419.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 232.505(a), 232.520, 232.540(b), 232.605 and 232.620.

    Project/Activity: Supplemental Loans to Finance Purchase and Installation of Fire Safety Equipment.

    Nature of Requirement: Waiver of provisions 232.505(a), 232.520, 232.540(b), 232.605 and 232.620 that do not reflect current processing requirements, as these regulatory procedures and protocols were established in 1974.

    Granted By: Carol J. Galante, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

    Date Granted: October 21, 2014.

    Reason Waived: There is an urgent need to install automatic fire sprinkler systems in nursing homes due to a new federal mandate.

    Contact: Vance T. Morris, Special Assistant, Office of Healthcare Programs, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 2337, Washington, DC 20401, telephone (202) 402-2419.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 891.100(d).

    Project/Activity: Teaneck Senior Housing, Teaneck, NJ, Project Number: 031-EE077/NJ39-S091-004.

    Nature of Requirement: Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amount of the approved capital advance funds prior to closing.

    Granted by: Carol J. Galante, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

    Date Granted: October 3, 2014.

    Reason Waived: The project is economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, and the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources.

    Contact: Catherine M. Brennan, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6180, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-3000.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 891.100(d).

    Project/Activity: Allen House, Millstone, NJ, Project Number: 031-EE083/NJ39-S101-006.

    Nature of Requirement: Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amount of the approved capital advance funds prior to closing.

    Granted by: Carol J. Galante, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

    Date Granted: October 3, 2014.

    Reason Waived: The project is economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, and the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources.

    Contact: Catherine M. Brennan, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6180, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-3000.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 891.100(d).

    Project/Activity: Our Lady of Assumption Apts., Abbeville, LA, Project Number: 064-EE243/LA48-S091-012.

    Nature of Requirement: Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amount of the approved capital advance funds prior to closing.

    Granted by: Carol J. Galante, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

    Date Granted: October 3, 2014.

    Reason Waived: The project is economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, and the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources.

    Contact: Catherine M. Brennan, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6180, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-3000.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.

    Project/Activity: Bill Sorro Community, San Francisco, CA, Project Number: 121-HD097/CA39-Q101-003.

    Nature of Requirement: Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18 months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 36 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis.

    Granted by: Carol J. Galante, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

    Date Granted: October 22, 2014.

    Reason Waived: Additional time was needed in order to meet the construction lender's loan requirement for this capital advance upon completion mixed-finance project.

    Contact: Catherine M. Brennan, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6180, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-3000.

    • Regulation: Requirements of Mortgagee Letter 2011-22, Condominium Project Approval and Processing Guide, Insurance Requirements.

    Project/Activity: Extension of initial waiver issued November 27, 2013, providing an exemption to the insurance requirements defined in Mortgagee Letter 2011-22, Condominium Project Approval and Processing Guide.

    Nature of Requirement: Section 2.1.9 of the Condominium Project Approval and Processing Guide, Insurance Requirements, defines the condominium project insurance requirements that must be met for issuance of FHA condominium project approval. The extension of the initial waiver allows for acceptance of individual insurance policies issued to the unit owners for Manufactured Housing, Detached and Common Interest Condominium Projects unable to satisfy the insurance requirements.

    Granted by: Biniam Gebre, Acting Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

    Date Granted: November 27, 2014.

    Reason Waived: The extension of the waiver previously issued that allows unit owners to obtain and maintain their own insurance coverage is required to ensure the continued availability of a condominium unit as an affordable housing option. Issuance of the extension is consistent with the Department's objectives to expand the availability of FHA mortgage insurance, while providing appropriate safeguards.

    Contact: Joanne B. Kuczma, Housing Program Officer, Office of Single Family Program Development, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-2137.

    III. Regulatory Waivers Granted by the Office of Public and Indian Housing

    For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 5.801(d)(1).

    Project/Activity: Olean Housing Authority (NY093), Olean NY.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation establishes certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted to the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) no later than nine months after the housing authority's (HA) fiscal year end (FYE), in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: October 1, 2014.

    Reason Waived: The final approval of the annual audit was postponed due to three weather related cancellations of meetings of the Board of Commissioners. The audit was completed in December 2013, but was inadvertently not submitted. Due to the Departments' delayed response and the fact that the audited financials have been submitted and approved, the housing authority was granted a one-time waiver.

    Contact: Judy Wojciechowski, Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 475-7907.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 5.801(d)(1).

    Project/Activity: The Municipality of Fajardo (RQ036) Fajardo, PR

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation establishes certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted to the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) no later than nine months after the housing authority's (HA) fiscal year end (FYE), in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: October 13, 2014.

    Reason Waived: The audited reporting requirements were delayed due to the unforeseen death of your predecessor auditor. The additional time was needed to enable the successor auditor to review and process for final approval. Due to the Departments' delayed response and the fact that the audited financial report was approved on August 28, 2014, the housing authority was granted this one-time waiver.

    Contact: Judy Wojciechowski, Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 475-7907.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 5.801(d)(1).

    Project/Activity: City of Mesa Housing Authority (AZ005) Mesa AZ.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation establishes certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted to the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) no later than nine months after the housing authority's (HA) fiscal year end (FYE), in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: October 14, 2014.

    Reason Waived: The delayed submission was a result of the process to implement a new ERP Integrated Information System during 2013. The agency is component unit and must wait until the city-wide audit was complete before processing the audited financial data. The agency incurred a turnover in staff prior to closing your 2013 books and that additional time was needed for IPA review and final submission. Due to the Department's delayed response and the fact that your audited financial report was approved on July 22, 2014, the housing authority was granted this one-time waiver.

    Contact: Judy Wojciechowski, Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 475-7907.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 5.801(d)(1).

    Project/Activity: South Tucson Housing Authority (AZ025) South Tucson, AZ

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation establishes certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted to the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) no later than nine months after the housing authority's (HA) fiscal year end (FYE), in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: November 19, 2014.

    Reason Waived: The delayed submission was a result of the City of South Tucson's inability to obtain an extension from OMB to complete its Single Audit requirement. The agency was a component unit and waited until the city-wide audit was completed before processing the audited financial data for submission. Due to the Department's delayed response and the fact that the audited financial report was approved on August 27, 2014, the housing authority was granted a one-time waiver.

    Contact: Judy Wojciechowski, Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 475-7907.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 5.801(d)(1).

    Project/Activity: Mercedes Housing Authority (TX029) Mercedes, TX

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation establishes certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted to the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) no later than nine months after the housing authority's (HA) fiscal year end (FYE), in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: November 26, 2014.

    Reason Waived: The delayed submission was due to issues between the independent auditor and the Texas State Board. The State Board required the agency to seek a second review from another independent auditor. However, due to human resource issues and scheduled vacation, the advising auditor could not complete the audit in time to submit your audited financial data by the due date. The agency's audited financial data was approved on September 4, 2014, therefore, the housing authority was granted a one-time waiver.

    Contact: Judy Wojciechowski, Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 475-7907.

    • Regulation: Notices PIH 2013-3 and PIH 20013-26: Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher Programs—Temporary Compliance Assistance.

    Project/Activity: PIH Notice 2013-3 was issued to establish temporary guidelines for public housing agencies (PHAs) in fulfilling certain public housing and housing choice voucher requirements during the current and upcoming fiscal year to alleviate some of the burden on already stressed PHA resources. The reduction of burden provided in this notice involved offering PHAs the option to comply with certain alternative requirements to existing regulations, and if they opted to do so the existing regulation would be waived. Issuance of this notice was reported in HUD's Quarterly Regulatory Waiver report published in the Federal Register on September 13, 2013, at 78 FR 56912, at 56916. On November 5, 2013, PIH extended the availability of the alternative requirements to existing regulations through March 31, 2015. The following housing authorities obtained regulatory waivers under these notices: Housing Authority of the Birmingham District, AL; Housing Authority of the City of Huntsville, AL; Enterprise Housing Authority, AL; Albertville Housing Authority, AL; Gordo Housing Authority, AL; Searcy Housing Authority, AR; Lonoke County Housing Authority, AR; Jonesboro Urban Renewal Housing Authority, AR; City of Phoenix Housing Department, AZ; Housing and Community Development Tucson, AZ; Housing Authority of Maricopa County, AZ; Yuma County Housing Department, AZ; Chandler Housing & Redevelopment Division, AZ; Tempe Housing Authority, AZ; Pima County Housing Authority, AZ; Housing Authority of the City & County of San Francisco, CA; Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, CA; City of Sacramento Housing Authority, CA; Housing Authority City of Fresno, CA; Housing Authority of Fresno County, CA; County of Sacramento Housing Authority, CA; Housing Authority of the County of Kern, CA; Tulare County Housing Authority, CA; Housing Authority of the City of San Buenaventura, CA; Regional Housing Authority of Sutter & Nevada Co, CA.; Housing Authority of County of Marin, CA; Housing Authority of the City of Vallejo, CA; City of Pittsburg Housing Authority, CA; Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo, CA; Alameda County Housing Authority, CA; Santa Cruz County Housing Authority, CA; Housing Authority of the City of Pasadena, CA; Mendocino County Housing Authority, CA; County of Sonoma Housing Authority, CA; Yuba County Housing Authority, CA; Housing Authority of the County of San Diego, CA; Housing Authority of the City of Norwalk, CA; City of Hollister Housing Authority, CA; City of Vacaville Housing Authority, CA; City of Roseville Housing Authority, CA; County of Solano Housing Authority, CA; City of Oceanside Community Development Commission, CA; Housing Authority of the City and County of Denver, CO; Wellington Housing Authority, CO; Housing Authority of the City of Greeley, CO; Littleton Housing Authority, CO; Fort Collins Housing Authority, CO; Englewood Housing Authority, CO; Lakewood Housing Authority, CO; Arvada Housing Authority, CO; Aurora Housing Authority, CO; Housing Authority of Weld County, CO; Larimer County Housing Authority, CO; Colorado Division of Housing, CO; Housing Authority of the City of Bridgeport, CT; Housing Authority of the City of Stamford, CT; Housing Authority of the City of Danbury, CT; West Haven Housing Authority, CT; Tampa Housing Authority, FL; Sarasota Housing Authority, FL; Housing Authority of Pompano Beach, FL; Housing Authority of the City of Fort Myers, FL; Milton Housing Authority, FL; Pinellas County Housing Authority, FL; Gainesville Housing Authority, FL; City of Pensacola Housing Office, FL; Housing Authority of Boca Raton, FL; Housing Authority of Lee County, FL; Housing Authority of the City of Athens, GA; Housing Authority of the City of Macon, GA; Housing Authority of the City of LaGrange, GA; Housing Authority of the City of Conyers, GA; Housing Authority of Fulton County, GA; Hawaii Public Housing Authority, HI; Kauai County Housing Agency, HI; City of Sioux City Housing Authority, IA; Des Moines Municipal Housing Agency, IA; City of Iowa City Housing Authority, IA; Boise City Housing Authority, ID; Southwestern Idaho Cooperative Housing Authority, ID; Idaho Housing and Finance Association, ID; Ada County Housing Authority, ID; Decatur Housing Authority, IL; Rockford Housing Authority, IL; Housing Authority Cook County, IL; Pike County Housing Authority, IL; Aurora Housing Authority of the City of Aurora, IL; Housing Authority of the Village of Oak Park, IL; Housing Authority of the City of New Albany, IN; Housing Authority of the City of Evansville, IN; Housing Authority of the City of Michigan City, IN; Housing Authority of the City of Terre Haute, IN; Brazil Housing Authority, IN; Cannelton Housing Authority, IN; Housing Authority of the City of Lafayette, IN; Housing Authority of the City of Peru, IN; Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority, IN; Wichita Housing Authority, KS; Holton Housing Authority, KS; Atchison Housing Authority, KS; Great Bend Housing Authority, KS; Wamego Housing Authority, KS; Housing Authority of Paducah, KY; Housing Authority of Somerset, KY; Housing Authority of Owensboro, KY; Housing Authority of Newport, KY; Housing Authority of Cynthiana, KY; Housing Authority of Glasgow, KY; Housing Authority of Owenton, KY; Bowling Green CDA, KY; Kentucky Housing Corporation-State Agency, KY; Ouachita Parish Police Jury, LA; Boston Housing Authority, MA; Taunton Housing Authority, MA; Lynn Housing Authority, MA; Newton Housing Authority, MA; Braintree Housing Authority, MA; Salem Housing Authority, MA; Holden Housing Authority, MA; Leominster Housing Authority, MA; Franklin County Regional Housing Authority, MA; Department of Housing & Community Development. MA; Hagerstown Housing Authority, MD; Rockville Housing Enterprises, MD; Elkton Housing Authority, MD; Portland Housing Authority, ME; Brunswick Housing Authority, ME; Auburn Housing Authority, ME; Housing Authority City of Bangor, ME; Biddeford Housing Authority, ME; Saco Housing Authority, ME; Maine State Housing Authority, ME; Detroit Housing Commission, MI; Inkster Housing Commission, MI; Eastpointe Housing Commission, MI; Cadillac Housing Commission, MI; Ann Arbor Housing Commission, MI; Traverse City Housing Commission, MI; Lapeer Housing Commission, MI; Wyoming Housing Commission, MI; Saranac Housing Commission, MI; Potterville Housing Commission, MI; Ingham County Housing Commission, MI; Michigan State Housing Development Authority, MI; Public Housing Agency of the City of St Paul, MN; Housing Authority of Virginia, MN; Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Paul, MN; Housing and Redevelopment Authority of St. Cloud, MN; Itasca County Housing Redevelopment Authority, MN; Northwest MN Multi-County Housing Redevelopment Authority, MN; Metropolitan Council of MN; Clay County Housing Redevelopment Authority, MN; Plymouth Housing & Redevelopment Authority, MN; Stearns County Housing Redevelopment Authority, MN: Washington County Housing Redevelopment Authority: Ripley County Public Housing Agency, MO; ESCSWA dba Jasper Cty Public Housing Agency, MO; Mississippi Regional Housing Authority No. VII, MS; Mississippi Regional Housing Authority No. VI, MS; Housing Authority of Billings, MT; Whitefish Housing Authority, MT; Missoula Housing Authority, MT; Housing Authority of the City of Asheville, NC; Housing Authority of the City of Greensboro, NC; Housing Authority of the City of Winston-Salem, NC; Housing Authority of the City of Durham, NC; Housing Authority of the City of Salisbury, NC; Mooresville Housing Authority, NC; City of Hickory Public Housing Authority, NC; New Edenton Housing Authority, NC; Asheboro Housing Authority, NC; Roanoke-Chowan Regional Housing Authority, NC; Western Carolina Community Action, Inc., NC; Northwestern Regional Housing Authority, NC; Omaha Housing Authority, NE; Hall County Housing Authority, NE; Kearney Housing Authority, NE; Henderson Housing Authority, NE; Minden Housing Authority, NE; Shelton Housing Authority, NE; Tilden Housing Authority, NE; Blair Housing Authority, NE; Gibbon Housing Authority, NE; Alliance Housing Authority, NE; Douglas County Housing Authority, NE; Norfolk Housing Agency, NE; Concord Housing Authority, NH; Laconia Housing & Redevelopment Authority, NH; Housing Authority of the Town of Salem, NH; New Hampshire Housing Finance Agency, NH; Housing Authority City of Jersey City, NJ; Burlington County Housing Authority, NJ; Mesilla Valley Public Housing Authority, NM; Housing Authority of the City of Truth or Consequences, NM; City of Reno Housing Authority, NV; Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority, NV; Nevada Rural Housing Authority, NV; Syracuse Housing Authority, NY; Municipal Housing Authority City Yonkers, NY; Gloversville Housing Authority, NY; Ithaca Housing Authority, NY; Town of Amherst, NY; NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development, NY; Village of Highland Falls, NY; Town of Southampton; Village of Elmira Heights, NY; City of North Tonawand, NY; Town of Colonie, NY; City of Buffalo, NY; Town of Clifton Park, NY; Town of Hadley, NY; Town of Guilderland, NY; Town of Bethlehem, NY; Town of Duanesburg, NY; Town of Niskayuna, NY; Town of Schodack, NY; Town of Horseheads, NY; City of Johnstown, NY; Town of Knox, NY; Town of Waterford, NY; Village of Scotia' Town of Glenville, NY; Town of Rotterdam, NY; Town of Corinth, NY; Fort Plain Housing Agency, NY; Village of Green Island, NY; Village of Corinth, NY; Town of Coeymans, NY; Town of Stillwater, NY; Village of Ballston Spa, NY; Town of Nassau, NY; Village of Waterford, NY; Youngstown Metropolitan Housing Authority, OH; Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, OH; Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority, OH; Akron Metropolitan Housing Authority, OH; Trumbull Metropolitan Housing Authority, OH; Jefferson Metropolitan Housing Authority, OH; Mansfield Metropolitan Housing Authority, OH; Springfield Metropolitan Housing Authority, OH; Huron Metropolitan Housing Authority, OH; Crawford Metropolitan housing Authority, OH: Geauga Metropolitan Housing Authority, OH; Warren Metropolitan Housing Authority; Seneca Metropolitan Housing Authority; Marion Metropolitan Housing Authority, OH; City of Marietta, OH; Brown Metropolitan Housing Authority, OH; Hancock Housing Authority, OH; Housing Authority of the City of Stillwater, OK; Housing Authority of Clackamas County, OR; Housing Authority of Lincoln County, OR; Housing Authority & Community Services of Lane County, OR; Housing Authority of the County of Umatilla' Housing and Urban Renewal Agency of Polk County, OR; North Bend Housing Authority, OR; Housing Authority of Jackson County, OR; Housing Authority of Yamhill County, OR; Linn-Benton Housing Authority, OR; Coos-Curry Housing Authority, OR; Housing Authority of Washington County, OR; Northwest Oregon Housing Authority, OR; Josephine Housing Community Development Council, OR; Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority, OR; Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh, PA; Allentown Housing Authority, PA; Allegany Housing Authority, PA: Chester Housing Authority. PA: Housing Authority of the County Butler, PA; Montgomery County Housing Authority, PA; Housing Authority of the County of Beaver, PA; Washington County Housing Authority, PA: Housing Authority of the County Delaware, PA; Housing Authority of the County of Huntingdon, PA; Housing Authority of the County of Franklin, PA; Housing Authority of the City of Hazleton, PA; Housing Authority of the County of Chester, PA; Bradford City Housing Authority, PA; Housing Authority of the County of Berks, PA; Housing Authority of the County of Cumberland, PA; Housing Authority of the County of McKean, PA; Lehigh County Housing Authority, PA; Columbia County Housing Authority, PA; Housing Authority of the County of Clarion, PA; Adams County Housing Authority, PA; Housing Authority Providence, RI; Housing Authority of the City of Pawtucket, RI; East Providence Housing Authority, RI; Greenville Housing Authority, SC; Housing Authority of Myrtle Beach, SC; Sioux Falls Housing and Redevelopment Commission, SD; Aberdeen Housing & Redevelopment Commission, SD; Memphis Housing Authority, TN; Knoxville's Community Development Corp., TN; Chattanooga Housing Authority, TN; Metropolitan Development & Housing Agency, TN; Kingsport Housing and Redevelopment Authority, TN; Murfreesboro Housing Authority, TN; Newport Housing Authority, TN; Bristol Housing Authority, TN; Elizabethton Housing and Development Agency, TN; East Tennessee Human Resource Agency, TN; Tennessee Housing Development Agency, TN; Northern Marianas Housing Corporation; Austin Housing Authority, TX; Housing Authority of the City of El Paso, TX; Housing Authority of Fort Worth, TX; Houston Housing Authority, TX; Housing Authority of the City of Dallas, TX; San Benito Housing Authority, TX; Housing Authority of Temple, TX; New Boston Property Management, TX; Housing Authority of the City of Munday, TX; Housing Authority of the City of Knox City, TX; Housing Authority of Belton, TX; Seguin Housing Authority, TX; Denton Housing Authority, TX; Arlington Housing Authority, TX; Housing Authority of Marshall, TX; City of Amarillo, TX; Housing Authority of the City of Rosenberg, TX; McKinney Housing Authority, TX; Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, UT; Housing Authority of Utah County, UT; Hopewell Redevelopment & Housing Authority, VA; Richmond Redevelopment & Housing Authority, VA; Roanoke Redevelopment & Housing Authority, VA; Hampton Redevelopment & Housing Authority, VA; Fairfax County Redevelopment & Housing Authority, VA; Lee County Redevelopment & Housing Authority, VA; Accomack-Northampton Regional Housing Authority, VA; Virgin Islands Housing Authority; Brattleboro Housing Authority, VT; Housing Authority of the City of Bremerton, WA; Housing Authority of the City of Everett, WA; Housing Authority City of Longview, WA; Housing Authority City of Bellingham, WA; Housing Authority of Snohomish County, WA; Housing Authority of Whatcom County, WA; Housing Authority of the City of Yakima, WA; Housing Authority of Thurston County, WA; Housing Authority of City of Spokane, WA; Housing Authority of the City of Walla Walla, WA; Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee, WI; New London Housing Authority, WI; River Falls Housing Authority, WI; West Bend Housing Authority, WI; Antigo Housing Authority, WI; Waukesha Housing Authority, WI; Brown County Housing Authority, WI; Janesville Neighborhood Services, WI; Walworth County Housing Authority, WI; Barron County Housing Authority, WI; Richland County Housing Authority, WI; New Berlin Housing Authority, WI; Waukesha County Housing Authority, WI; Wisconsin Housing & Economic Development Authority, WI; Fairmont/Morgantown Housing Authority, WV; Housing Authority of the City of Beckley, WV; and Housing Authority of Raleigh County, WV.

    Nature of Requirement: The alternative requirements to regulatory requirements that were offered under the original notice and extended by the second notice were the following: The notice allows PHAs to use participants' actual past income to verify income, which would be a waiver of the requirement to project expected income in 24 CFR 5.609(a)(2). The notice allows households to self-certify as to having assets of less than $5,000, which would be a waiver of the requirement under 24 CFR 5.609(b)(3), 982.516(a)(2)(ii), and 960.259(c) for PHAs to verify assets. The notice allows a streamlined reexamination of income for elderly families and disabled families on fixed incomes, which would be a waiver of the requirement in 24 CFR 982.516 and 960.257 for PHAs to undertake the complete process for income verification and rent determination for families on fixed incomes. The notice allows PHAs to establish a payment standard of not more than 120 percent of the fair market rent without HUD approval as a reasonable accommodation, which would be a waiver of 24 CFR 982.503(c)(2)(B)(ii), which allows a PHA to establish a payment standard for the housing choice voucher program only but within limits currently permitted but designated for approval only by a HUD field office.

    Granted By: Sandra B. Henriquez, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Dates Granted: January 2013 through March 2015.

    Reason Waived: The waivers and alternative requirements were granted because they would help facilitate the ability of PHAs to continue, without interruption and with minimal burden, the delivery of rental assistance to eligible families in their communities. Increased demand for housing assistance without corresponding increased resources strains the operations of PHAs and jeopardizes their ability to assist families at a time when families most need housing assistance.

    Contact: Todd Thomas, Senior Program Specialist, Public Housing Management and Occupancy Division, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC 20410, telephone 202-402-5849.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.503(c), 982.503(c)(4)(ii) and 982.503(c)(5).

    Project/Activity: Dunn County Housing Authority (DCHA), McKenzie County Housing Authority (MCHA), Bowman County Housing Authority (BCHA), Adams County Housing Authority (ACHA), Hettinger County Housing Authority (HCHA), Billings County Housing Authority (BCHA), Slope County Housing Authority (SCHA), Golden Valley County Housing Authority (GVCHA), Stark County Housing Authority (SCHA), ND.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(c) establishes the methodology for establishing exception payment standards for an area. HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 503(c)(4)(ii) states that HUD will only approve an exception payment standard amount after six months from the date of HUD approval of an exception payment standard amount above 110 percent to 120 percent of the published fair market rent (FMR). HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(c)(5) states that the total population of a HUD-approved exception areas in an FMR area may not include more than 50 percent of the population of the FMR area.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: October 17, 2014.

    Reason Waived: These waivers were granted because of increased economic activity due to natural resource exploration.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.503(c), 982.503(c)(4)(ii) and 982.503(c)(5).

    Project/Activity: Burleigh County Housing Authority (BCHA), Bismarck, ND.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(c) establishes the methodology for establishing exception payment standards for an area. HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 503(c)(4)(ii) states that HUD will only approve an exception payment standard amount after six months from the date of HUD approval of an exception payment standard amount above 110 percent to 120 percent of the published fair market rent (FMR). HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(c)(5) states that the total population of a HUD-approved exception areas in an FMR area may not include more than 50 percent of the population of the FMR area.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: November 19, 2014.

    Reason Waived: These waivers were granted because of increased economic activity due to natural resource exploration.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: Arvada Housing Authority (AHA), Arvada, CO.

    Nature of Requirement: 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: October 1, 2014.

    Reason Waived: The participant, who is a person with disabilities, required an exception payment standard to move to a more accessible unit. To provide this reasonable accommodation so the client could move to a new unit and pay no more than 40 percent of her adjusted income toward the family share, the AHA was allowed to approve an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: West Valley Housing Authority (WVHA), Dallas, OR.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: October 23, 2014.

    Reason Waived: The applicant, who is a person with disabilities, required an exception payment standard to remain in her current unit that met her needs. To provide this reasonable accommodation so that the client could remain in her unit and pay no more than 40 percent of her adjusted income toward the family share, the WVHA was allowed to approve an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: Housing Authority of Grays Harbor County (HAGHC), Aberdeen, WA.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: December 10, 2014.

    Reason Waived: The applicant, who is a person with disabilities, required an exception payment standard to remain in her current unit that met her needs. To provide this reasonable accommodation so that the client could remain in her unit and pay no more than 40 percent of her adjusted income toward the family share, the HAGHC was allowed to approve an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: Rhode Island Housing (RHI), Providence, RI.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: December 17, 2014.

    Reason Waived: The participant, who is a person with disabilities, required an exception payment standard to move to a unit that meets her needs. To provide this reasonable accommodation so the family could move to a new unit and pay no more than 40 percent of its adjusted income toward the family share, RHI was allowed to approve an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA), San Francisco, CA.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: December 17, 2014.

    Reason Waived: The applicant was a person with disabilities who required an exception payment standard to move to a unit that met his needs. To provide this reasonable accommodation so that the client could move to a new unit and pay no more than 40 percent of his adjusted income toward the family share, the SFHA was allowed to approve an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: Howard County Housing (HCH), Columbia, MD.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: December 29, 2014.

    Reason Waived: The participant, who is a person with disabilities, required an exception payment standard to move to a new unit. To provide this reasonable accommodation so the family could move to a new unit and pay no more than 40 percent of its adjusted income toward the family share, HCH was allowed to approve an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: City of Roseville Housing Authority (CRHA), Roseville, CA.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: December 29, 2014.

    Reason Waived: The applicant, who is a person with disabilities, required an exception payment standard to move to a new unit. To provide this reasonable accommodation so the family could move to a new unit and pay no more than 40 percent of his adjusted income toward the family share, the CRHA was allowed to approve an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 985.101(a).

    Project/Activity: Hawaii Public Housing Authority (HPHA), Honolulu, HI.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 985.101(a) states a PHA must submit the HUD-required Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) certification form within 60 calendar days after the end of its fiscal year.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: October 20, 2014.

    Reason Waived: This waiver was granted since HPHA had technical difficulties in submitting its certification. HPHA was permitted to submit its SEMAP certification after the due date.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 985.101(a).

    Project/Activity: Fort Wayne Housing Authority (FWHA), Fort Wayne, IN.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 985.101(a) states a PHA must submit the HUD-required Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) certification form within 60 calendar days after the end of its fiscal year.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: November 7, 2014.

    Reason Waived: This waiver was granted since the executive director had a death in his family at the time the SEMAP certification was due. FWHA was permitted to submit its SEMAP certification after the due date.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC, 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 985.101(a).

    Project/Activity: Housing Authority of the City of Meriden (HACM), Meriden, CT.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 985.101(a) states a PHA must submit the HUD-required Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) certification form within 60 calendar days after the end of its fiscal year.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: December 17, 2014.

    Reason Waived: This waiver was granted since the SEMAP certification had been submitted timely, but incorrectly into PICTEST. HACM was permitted to submit its SEMAP certification after the due date.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 985.101(a).

    Project/Activity: Palm Beach County Housing Authority (PBCHA), West Palm Beach, FL.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 985.101(a) states a PHA must submit the HUD-required Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) certification form within 60 calendar days after the end of its fiscal year.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: December 17, 2014.

    Reason Waived: This waiver was granted since the SEMAP certification had been submitted timely, but with an error message that could not be validated. PBCHA was permitted to submit its SEMAP certification after the due date.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 985.101(a).

    Project/Activity: Mercer County Housing Authority (MCHA), Aledo, IL.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 985.101(a) states a PHA must submit the HUD-required Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) certification form within 60 calendar days after the end of its fiscal year.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: December 29, 2014.

    Reason Waived: This waiver was granted since it the executive director was new and notification emails regarding SEMAP submission were sent to the wrong email address. MCHA was permitted to submit its SEMAP certification after the due date.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 1000.327(b).

    Project/Activity: Asa'Carsarmiut Tribe of Mountain Village, Alaska 99632-0249; Stebbins Community Association of Stebbins, Alaska 99671; Bering Straits Regional Housing Authority of Nome, Alaska 99762; Native Village of Kivalina of Kivalina, AK 99750.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 1000.327(b) requires Indian tribes in Alaska not located on a reservation to notify HUD in writing by September 15th that they or their Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE) intends to submit an Indian Housing Plan (IHP) for the following fiscal year. If the tribe or their TDHE does not notify HUD, or notifies HUD that they do not intend to submit an IHP, HUD allocates the tribe's need formula data in the Indian Housing Block Grant formula to the tribe's regional tribe or regional corporation. HUD is required to allocate IHBG funds within 60 days of an appropriation, and prior notification ensures that HUD can properly allocate Alaska tribes' need data and make formula allocations in a timely manner.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: November 24, 2014.

    Reason Waived: HUD granted the waiver because the tribes and TDHE would have lost out on critical Indian Housing Block Grant funding for the year. The waiver would not delay HUD's process because the Congressional appropriation for the upcoming fiscal year had not yet occurred. As such, the Department believed that there was good cause to waive the notification requirements of 24 CFR 1000.327(b).

    Contact: Glenda N. Green, Director for the Office of Grants Management, Office of Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Suite 5156, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-6967.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 1000.224.

    Project/Activity: Pueblo de Cochiti of Cochiti Pueblo, NM 87072-0070.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 1000.224 that the Secretary may waive the applicability of the requirement to submit an Indian Housing Plan (IHP), in whole or in part, for a period of not more than 90 days, if the Secretary determines that an Indian tribe has not complied with, or is unable to comply with, those requirements due to exigent circumstances beyond the control of the Indian Tribe.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: October 20, 2014.

    Reason Waived: A waiver was requested because of the unexpected resignation of the Executive Director based on health issues. The waiver was provided for no more than 90 days on the basis of exigent circumstances beyond its control.

    Contact: Cheryl Dixon, Grants Management Specialist, Office of Grants Management, Office of Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 500 Gold Avenue SW., Seventh FL, Suite 7301, Albuquerque, NM 87103-0906, telephone (505) 346-6924.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 1000.224.

    Project/Activity: Hopi Tribal Housing Authority of Polacca, AZ 86042.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 1000.224 that the Secretary may waive the applicability of the requirement to submit an Indian Housing Plan (IHP), in whole or in part, for a period of not more than 90 days, if the Secretary determines that an Indian tribe has not complied with, or is unable to comply with, those requirements due to exigent circumstances beyond the control of the Indian Tribe.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: October 22, 2014.

    Reason Waived: A waiver was requested because a new Executive Director was in the process of being hired. The waiver was provided for no more than 90 days on the basis of exigent circumstances beyond its control.

    Contact: Cristal Quinn, Grants Management Specialist, Office of Grants Management, Office of Native American Programs, Southwest Office of Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, One N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004, telephone (602) 379-7206.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 1000.224.

    Project/Activity: Resighini Rancheria of Klamath, CA 95548-0529.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 1000.224 that the Secretary may waive the applicability of the requirement to submit an Indian Housing Plan (IHP), in whole or in part, for a period of not more than 90 days, if the Secretary determines that an Indian tribe has not complied with, or is unable to comply with, those requirements due to exigent circumstances beyond the control of the Indian Tribe.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: October 22, 2014.

    Reason Waived: A waiver was requested because of new staff turnover, which resulted in technological problems in completing the IHP. The waiver was provided for no more than 90 days on the basis of exigent circumstances beyond its control.

    Contact: Sarah Olson, Grants Management Specialist, Office of Grants Management, Office of Native American Programs, Southwest Office of Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, One N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004, telephone (602) 379-7233.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 1000.224.

    Project/Activity: Cahto Indians of the Laytonville Rancheria, Laytonville, CA 95454-1239.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 1000.224 that the Secretary may waive the applicability of the requirement to submit an Indian Housing Plan (IHP), in whole or in part, for a period of not more than 90 days, if the Secretary determines that an Indian tribe has not complied with, or is unable to comply with, those requirements due to exigent circumstances beyond the control of the Indian Tribe.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: October 22, 2014.

    Reason Waived: A waiver was requested because there were no housing funds available to pay the housing staff salary prior to completing the IHP. The Tribe needed time to re-hire the staff person to complete and submit the IHP. The waiver was provided for no more than 90 days on the basis of exigent circumstances beyond its control.

    Contact: Daniel Celaya, Grants Management Specialist, Office of Grants Management, Office of Native American Programs, Southwest Office of Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian, Housing Department of Housing and Urban Development, One N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004, telephone (602) 379-7193.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 1000.224.

    Project/Activity: Big Valley Tribe of Pomo Indians, Lakeport, CA 95453.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 1000.224 that the Secretary may waive the applicability of the requirement to submit an Indian Housing Plan (IHP), in whole or in part, for a period of not more than 90 days, if the Secretary determines that an Indian tribe has not complied with, or is unable to comply with, those requirements due to exigent circumstances beyond the control of the Indian Tribe.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: October 22, 2014.

    Reason Waived: A waiver was requested because a new Executive Director was in the process of being hired. The waiver was provided for no more than 90 days on the basis of exigent circumstances beyond its control.

    Contact: Sarah Olson, Grants Management Specialist, Office of Grants Management, Office of Native American Programs, Southwest Office of Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing Department of Housing and Urban Development, One N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004, telephone (602) 379-7233.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 1000.224.

    Project/Activity: Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, Summit Lake, NV.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 1000.224 that the Secretary may waive the applicability of the requirement to submit an Indian Housing Plan (IHP), in whole or in part, for a period of not more than 90 days, if the Secretary determines that an Indian tribe has not complied with, or is unable to comply with, those requirements due to exigent circumstances beyond the control of the Indian Tribe.

    Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: October 28, 2014.

    Reason Waived: A waiver was requested because the Tribal Council went through an internal reorganization; the person responsible for preparing the IHP was no longer associated with the Tribal Council. The Tribal Council will assign another council member to complete the IHP. The waiver was provided for no more than 90 days on the basis of exigent circumstances beyond its control.

    Contact: Leticia Rodriguez, Grants Management Specialist, Office of Grants Management, Office of Native American Programs, Southwest Office of Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 500 Gold Ave. SW., Seventh FL, Suite 7301, Albuquerque, NM 87103-0906, telephone (505) 346-6926.

    [FR Doc. 2015-07183 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5831-N-16] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application for Energy Innovation Fund—Multifamily Pilot Program AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: April 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; email at Colette [email protected] or telephone 202-402-3400. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. This is not a toll-free number. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A.

    The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on December 5, 2014 at 79 FR 72194.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Application for Energy Innovation Fund—Multifamily Pilot Program.

    OMB Approval Number: 2502-0599.

    Type of Request: Extension of currently approved collection.

    Form Numbers: N/A.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Application information will be used to evaluate, score and rank applications for grant funds.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 12.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 120.

    Frequency of Response: 4.

    Average Hours per Response: 25.

    Total Estimated Burdens: 464.

    Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

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

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Colette Pollard, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07323 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLNMP00000 L13110000.PP0000 15XL1109PF] Notice of Cancellation of Public Meeting, Pecos District Resource Advisory Council Meeting, Lesser Prairie-Chicken Habitat Preservation Area of Critical Environmental Concern (LPC ACEC) Livestock Grazing Subcommittee New Mexico AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Cancellation of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the meeting of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Pecos District Resource Advisory Council's (RAC) Lesser Prairie-Chicken (LPC) Habitat Preservation Area of Critical Environmental Concerns (ACEC) Livestock Grazing Subcommittee originally scheduled for the time a date listed below is cancelled.

    DATES:

    The LPC ACEC Subcommittee was originally scheduled to meet on March 31, 2015, at 1 p.m. in the Roswell Field Office, 2909 West Second Street, Roswell, New Mexico 88201.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Adam Ortega, Roswell Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 2909 West 2nd Street, Roswell, New Mexico 88201, 575-627-0204. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8229 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The 10-member Pecos District RAC elected to create a subcommittee to advise the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM Pecos District, about possible livestock grazing within the LPC ACEC. The Pecos District RAC met on March 10, 2015, and voted to pass on Subcommittee's management recommendations for the LPC ACEC to the BLM's Pecos District, making the scheduled meeting of the subcommittee unnecessary.

    James K. Stovall, Acting Deputy State Director, Lands and Resources.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07286 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NRNHL-17822; PPWOCRADI0, PCU00RP14.R50000] National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions

    Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before February 28, 2015. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation. Comments may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by April 15, 2015. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: March 10, 2015. J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program. COLORADO Jefferson County District No. 17 School—Medlen School, (Rural School Buildings in Colorado MPS), Address Restricted, Morrison, 15000139 IOWA Polk County Plymouth Place, 4111 Ingersoll Ave., Des Moines, 15000140 KANSAS Cherokee County Kansas Route 66 Historic District—North Baxter Springs, (Route 66 in Kansas MPS), N. Willow Ave. SE. 50th St., Baxter Springs, 15000141 Clark County Girl Scout Little House, (New Deal-Era Resources of Kansas MPS), 448 W. 6th Ave., Ashland, 15000142 Cowley County Strother Field Tetrahedron Wind Indicator, (World War II-Era Aviation-Related Facilities of Kansas), 22215 Tupper St., Winfield, 15000143 Hodgeman County St. Mary's Catholic Church, 14920 SE. 232 Rd., Kinsley, 15000144 Labette County Parsonian Hotel, The, 1725 Broadway Ave., Parsons, 15000145 Marion County Bown—Corby School, (Public Schools of Kansas MPS), 412 N. 2nd St., Marion, 15000146 Montgomery County Washington School, (Public Schools of Kansas MPS), 300 E. Myrtle St., Independence, 15000147 Morris County Hermit's Cave on Belfry Hill, E. of N. Belfry St., generally from Columbia to Conn Sts., Council Grove, 15000148 Wabaunsee County Fix Farmstead, (Agriculture-Related Resources of Kansas MPS), 34554 Old K-10 Rd., Alma, 15000149 MONTANA Madison County Doncaster Round Barn, Riverside Dr., Twin Bridges, 15000150 NEW JERSEY Essex County Eighteenth Avenue School, 229-243 18th Ave., Newark, 15000151 TEXAS Collingsworth County State Highway 203 (Old TX 52) Bridge at Salt Fork of the Red River, (Road Infrastructure of Texas, 1866-1965 MPS), TX 203 at Salt Fork of Red R., Wellington, 15000152 Palo Pinto County State Highway 16, Brazos River Bridge Segment, (Road Infrastructure of Texas, 1866-1965 MPS), TX 16 from 7.4 mi. NE. of US 180 to jct. of TX 16 & TX 254, Graford, 15000153
    [FR Doc. 2015-07274 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-51-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R4-R-2015-N013]; [FXRS12650400000S3-123-FF04R02000] Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge, Mississippi; Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Environmental Assessment and Associated Step-Down Plans AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of the final Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the environmental assessment and associated step-down plans, including the Habitat Management Plan, Integrated Pest Management Plan, and the Visitor Services Plan, for Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge in Oktibbeha, Noxubee, and Winston Counties, Mississippi. In the final CCP, we describe how we will manage the Refuge for the next 15 years.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may obtain a copy of the CCP and FONSI by writing to: Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge, 13723 Bluff Lake Rd., Brooksville, MS 39739. Alternatively, you may download the documents from our Internet Site: http://southeast.fws.gov/planning under “Completed CCP Documents.”

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Reagan, Project Leader, 662-323-5548, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Introduction

    With this notice, we finalize the CCP process for Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge. We started the process through a notice in the Federal Register on Tuesday, January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3024). For more about the process, see that notice.

    Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is located within three counties (Noxubee, Oktibbeha, and Winston) in east-central Mississippi, and is approximately 17 miles south-southwest of Starkville and approximately 120 miles north-northeast of Jackson, the capital of Mississippi. The Refuge is currently 48,219 acres. The primary establishing legislation for the Refuge is Executive Order 8444, dated June 14, 1940. Established as Noxubee NWR in 1940, the Refuge was subsequently renamed Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee NWR by Public Law 112-279 on February 14, 2012.

    Background The CCP Process

    The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Administration Act.

    Comments

    We made copies of the Draft CCP/EA available for a 60-day public review and comment period via a Federal Register notice on Thursday August 28, 2014 (79 FR 51356). We provided four hard copies of the Draft CCP/EA to those individuals or organizations requesting a copy. The draft CCP/EA was also accessed via the internet. A total of 37 individuals, organizations, and government agencies provided comments on the Draft CCP/EA by U.S. Mail or email. Comments were received from private citizens; The Humane Society of the United States; Wild South; Mississippi State University; Safari Club International; Mississippi Entomological Museum; Center for Biological Diversity; Florida Gulf Coast University; Wolf River Conservancy; Oktibbeha Audubon Society; The Nature Conservancy; Mississippi Department of Wildlife Fisheries, and Parks; Mississippi Department of Transportation; Mississippi Department of Archives and History; and Greenfire Law.

    CCP Alternatives, Including Our Preferred Alternative

    We developed three alternatives for managing the Refuge (Alternatives A, B, and C), with Alternative C selected for implementation. This alternative will manage refuge resources to optimize native wildlife populations and habitats under a balanced and integrated approach, not only for federally listed species (red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCW)) and migratory birds, but also for other native species such as white-tailed deer, wild turkey, Northern bobwhite, paddlefish, and forest-breeding birds.

    This alternative also provides opportunities for the six priority public uses (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and interpretation and environmental education) and other wildlife-dependent activities found to be appropriate and compatible with the purpose for which the Refuge was established.

    Wildlife and Habitat

    Under this alternative, the Refuge would favor management that restores historic forest conditions while achieving Refuge purposes.

    Waterfowl: This alternative would provide approximately 1 million Duck Energy Days (DEDs) over a 110-day period yearly, through the possible combination of managed moist soil units, planted agricultural crops that can be flooded, aquatic vegetation and invertebrates within Refuge lakes, and seasonally flooded green-tree reservoirs which provide mast crops and invertebrates. Wood duck breeding opportunities would be enhanced using wood duck nest boxes, but greater emphasis would be placed on protecting trees with natural cavities throughout the bottomland forests. Trees found with existing cavities and those having unique wildlife values would be protected from timber harvest.

    Active manipulation of habitats and populations would occur as necessary to maintain biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. Silvicultural treatments within bottomland hardwood habitats would receive low priority, but may be used to promote recruitment of red oak species within the overstory of those flooded forested habitats used by waterfowl. The Refuge would attempt to increase brood survival of waterfowl by managing shallow water aquatic habitats to produce and sustain protective shrub-scrub cover with fringe area of the Refuge's lakes. Manipulation of water level would be the primary tool used to produce the desired shrub-scrub cover.

    The Refuge would participate in wood duck banding programs and try to obtain Refuge quotas as assigned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's national Migratory Bird program, and limit human access to key areas used by waterfowl to reduce disturbance during critical life cycle stages.

    Forest Breeding Birds: Forest-breeding bird populations would be enhanced through improved nesting, brooding, and foraging opportunities by application of active habitat manipulation techniques within bottomland hardwood forested habitats and streamside management zones. Even and uneven aged silviculture, including selective thinning, patch cuts, group tree selections, shelterwoods, irregular shelterwoods, clearcuts, timber stand improvements, wildlife stand improvements, chemical treatments, and other methods, could be used to ensure hardwood species diversity, red oak recruitment into the overstory, and forest structure for the benefit of a diversity of wildlife.

    Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW): The number of RCW clusters would be based on continuous pine habitat as defined by historic conditions and the optimal partition size of 300 acres based on a loblolly forest stand surviving to at least 100 years of age. Based on a spatial analysis accounting for locations and size of pine stands and the current locations of active RCW groups, the Refuge is expected to be able to manage for 49 partitions. All RCW partitions would be managed according to the RCW Recovery Plan and, where sufficient habitat exists, to provide long-term good-quality foraging habitat.

    Habitat manipulations used to benefit RCWs could include silvicultural practices (e.g., active forest management, including but not limited to manual or mechanized pre-commercial thinning, commercial biomass thinning, mulching, firewood cutting, timber stand improvements, herbicide, irregular shelterwood, shelterwood, seedtree, patch cuts, afforestation, reforestation, and free thinning), prescribed fire, raking, mowing, creation of new artificial cavities, maintenance of suitable cavities, midstory reduction (chemical and/or mechanical control), integrated pest management, use of restrictor plates on cavities, snake exclusion devices, and kleptoparasite control.

    In order to sustain forest resources for future RCW habitat, harvesting of existing mature forests as part of regeneration efforts within present and future partitions may occur. No additional, non-historic pine habitats outside currently active partitions would be maintained or converted for support of the RCW. Refuge staff and possibly contractors would continue to scientifically monitor RCWs through observation and nest and fledge checks.

    Monitoring: Additional quantitative monitoring of a broad suite of wildlife and their habitats will be sought through the participation of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), universities, and volunteers in the Refuge System's Inventory and Monitoring program for development of standardized survey methods, cataloging and analyzing Refuge information.

    Invasive and Exotic Species: Efforts would be made to prevent the establishment of exotic invasive species and pest species.

    Bluff Lake: Deep water habitats within Bluff Lake would be created through dirt excavation to ensure consistency in recreational fisheries resources (i.e., crappie, bass, and sunfish). Excavated soil from the creation of the deep water habitat would be used to create islands within the lake to serve as bird rookery sites. Other existing water control structures on Bluff Lake and in areas upstream of the lake may also be modified or removed to allow fish passage. Paddlefish and Gulf Coast Walleye could benefit from the restoration. Additional ephemeral pools for amphibians would be artificially created throughout the Refuge through excavation in areas where excess water impedes road maintenance or threatens sedimentation of streams.

    Morgan Hill Prairie: The Morgan Hill Prairie Demonstration Area would remain but be reduced by more than 50 percent in size, and the remaining area would be restored into habitats similar to that indicated by historic conditions.

    Fields: Existing old fields that would not be a direct benefit to federally protected species or waterfowl would continue to be managed as old field sites for the benefit of native grassland species. Old fields that would be a direct benefit to federally protected species or waterfowl would be restored to historical species compositions through natural regeneration or the manual planting of trees. No new field sites would be created.

    Forest Management: Active forest management, including silvicultural treatments, prescribed fire, and chemical and/or mechanical midstory reduction, would occur throughout the Refuge's habitats to achieve desired historic forest conditions, greater habitat diversity and greater forest structure to benefit RCW, forest interior birds, and a wider range of native wildlife. Upland forests would be managed for historic conditions and, when applicable, management would emphasize providing the needed habitat for federally listed species. If needed to support federally listed species, active forest management would occur using a variety of techniques, including timber harvest, prescribed fire, and chemical and/or mechanical midstory reduction.

    Resource Protection

    Cultural Resources: To protect cultural resources, completing a comprehensive, Refuge-wide survey of archeological sites would be the goal as well as individual cultural resource surveys as needed for specific projects or sites. Partnerships would be developed with other agencies, institutions, Tribes, and other cultural groups, to seek ideas and possibly share staff positions. The Refuge would improve management and interpretation of the Refuge's cultural resources.

    Land Acquisition: Conservation partnerships would be developed with neighboring landowners to have the greatest impact on maintaining or restoring the biological integrity of the local community. Fee title acquisition from willing sellers will focus on lands within the existing approved acquisition boundary that will most efficiently assist the Refuge in meeting the purposes for which it was established and the mission of the Service.

    Research Natural Areas (RNA): Under this alternative the two RNAs would no longer remain under this designation and would be managed as part of the larger surrounding units of similar type and managed for their historic conditions.

    Staff: A second wildlife law enforcement officer would be established, in combination with possible collateral duty officer positions to assist in protecting natural and cultural resources, along with public safety.

    Visitor Services

    The current level of visitor services programs would be expanded for the general public, and attempts made to provide more access for users with disabilities and youth. This alternative would establish a “Connecting People with Nature” area to consolidate activities and users requiring greater support to enjoy wildlife dependent activities.

    All existing wildlife-dependent uses and the supporting facilities would be maintained and, if resources are available, enhanced through possible increase and better maintenance in overlooks, boardwalks, and trails. An effort would be made to increase visitor safety and enjoyment through establishment of parking areas, improved management of vehicle flow, creation of paved walking and biking trails, and roadside bike lanes along Bluff Lake and Loakfoma Roads. Refuge regulatory and informational signs would receive priority.

    Public activities found compatible include bicycle, boating, and picnicking in association with wildlife-dependent activities, geocaching for environmental education, recreational fishing and hunting, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation.

    Hunting: the Service would develop a weeklong large game (turkey and deer) hunt program to provide increased opportunities for disabled hunters in exchange for a one-week reduction in the general gun deer and turkey seasons. Deer hunting opportunities overall would be increased. The Service would work with the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks to develop family hunting and fishing opportunities.

    Fishing: Fishing opportunities would be expanded to include year-round designated bank fishing areas on Bluff Lake's south shore.

    Fees: Alternative funding mechanisms, such as a general user fee under the Fee Program, would be used to spread costs of programs across all users. This alternative would continue participation in the existing Fee Program. Changes within the program would include establishment of a general access pass for all users to assist in the maintenance and development of public use programs and facilities (e.g., Daily Pass, Weekly Pass, or Annual Pass). Current Federal duck stamps and other congressionally authorized entrance fee passes would be accepted as a Refuge access pass. This additional fee would allow the Refuge to fully support and improve the Refuge's public use programs to better meet public interest. Without additional fees, the current level of public use would not be sustainable based on base funding alone.

    Partnerships: Partnerships to conduct environmental education and off-site activities and increase volunteer involvement in all Refuge programs would be established. More effort would be placed toward developing cooperative programs sponsored through the Refuge's Friends group.

    Staff: The current staff of 9 employees would be reorganized, with a goal of reaching 13 staff; this is still less than the optimal staff level of 18 as recommended within the 2008 Final Report for the Staffing Model for Field Stations.

    Authority:

    This notice is published under the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.).

    Dated: February 27, 2015. Mike Oetker, Acting Regional Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07356 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NRNHL-17869; PPWOCRADI0, PCU00RP14.R50000] National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions

    Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before March 7, 2015. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation. Comments may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service,1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by April 15, 2015. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: March 13, 2015. J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program. IOWA Polk County Equitable Life Insurance Company of Iowa Building, 604 Locust St. & 316 6th Ave., Des Moines, 15000154 MARYLAND Allegany County Evergreen, 15603 Trimble Rd. NW., Mount Savage, 15000155 MICHIGAN Allegan County Francis Metallic Surfboat, 130 W. Center St., Douglas, 15000156 Branch County Beardsley, Ezra E. and Florence (Holmes), House, 1063 Holmes Rd., Bronson Township, 15000157 Jackson County Otsego Hotel, 102-106 Francis St., Jackson, 15000158 Wayne County Temple Baptist Church—King Solomon Baptist Church, 6102 & 6125 14th St., Detroit, 15000159 MONTANA Yellowstone County Graf, Arnold, House, 633 Highland Park Dr., Billings, 15000160 NORTH CAROLINA Cabarrus County Coleman—Franklin—Cannon Mill, 625 Main St. SW., Concord, 15000161 Duplin County Carter—Simmons House, 218 Coy Smith Rd., Albertson, 15000162 Guilford County Carolina Casket Company, 812 Millis St., High Point, 15000163 Henderson County Sewell, Dillard B. and Georgia, House, 64 Clipper Ln., Penrose, 15000164 Orange County Chapel Hill Historic District (Boundary Increase), Roughly bounded by Carolina Ave., North, Cameron & Columbia Sts., Chapel Hill, 15000165 Polk County Stone Hedge, 222 Stone Hedge Ln., Tryon, 15000166 OREGON Multnomah County Ott, David and Marianne, House, 2075 Palmblad Rd., Gresham, 15000167

    A request for removal has been received for the following resource:

    MICHIGAN Bay County Bay City Bascule Bridge, (Highway Bridges of Michigan MPS) M-13/M-84 over East Channel of Saginaw R., Bay City, 99001465
    [FR Doc. 2015-07276 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-51-P
    JOINT BOARD FOR THE ENROLLMENT OF ACTUARIES Meeting of the Advisory Committee; Meeting AGENCY:

    Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Executive Director of the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries gives notice of a closed meeting of the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on April 27, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at The Savitz Organization, 1845 Walnut Street, 14th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick W. McDonough, Executive Director of the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries, 703-414-3163.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations will meet at The Savitz Organization, 1845 Walnut Street, 14th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

    The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions that may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in actuarial mathematics, pension law and methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B).

    A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that the subject of the meeting falls within the exception to the open meeting requirement set forth in Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public interest requires that such meeting be closed to public participation.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Patrick W. McDonough, Executive Director, Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07335 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

    On March 23, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia in the lawsuit entitled United States v. Richard Middleton, et al., Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-00127-WLS.

    The proposed consent decree resolves the United States' claims against: Richard Middleton, Circle Environmental, Inc. and Waterpollutionsolutions.com, Inc. (collectively the “Settling Defendants”), for cost recovery under Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) relating to the release or threatened release of hazardous substances into the environment at the Circle Environmental #1 and #2 Superfund Sites (the “Sites”) in Terrell County, Georgia. Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, Settling Defendants will reimburse the United States' past costs in connection with the removal actions at the Sites in the amount of $285,000. In return, the United States agrees not to sue or take administrative action against Settling Defendants under Section 107 of CERCLA for past response costs. The case remains open against BSJR, LLC.

    The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States v. Richard Middleton et al., D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-3-10265. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:

    To submit comments: Send them to: By email [email protected] By mail Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html. We will provide a paper copy of the consent decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    Please enclose a check or money order for $5.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury for a copy of the consent decree with Appendices, or $4.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) for a copy of the consent decree without Appendices.

    Henry S. Friedman, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07307 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories Standard ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    On March 31, 2015, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Public comments on the ICR are invited.

    DATES:

    The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201502-1218-002 (this link will only become active on April 1, 2015) or by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected] Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Departmental Information Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; or by email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories Standard information collection codified in regulation 29 CFR 1910.1450. The Standard applies to any Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) laboratory that uses hazardous chemicals in accordance with the Standard's definitions for laboratory use of hazardous chemicals and laboratory scale. The Standard requires such a laboratory to maintain worker exposures at or below the permissible exposure limits specified for the hazardous chemicals in 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z. A laboratory does so by developing a written Chemical Hygiene Plan (CHP) that describes: Standard operating procedures for using hazardous chemicals; hazard-control techniques; equipment-reliability measures; worker information-and-training programs; conditions under which the employer must approve operations, procedures, and activities before implementation; and medical consultations and examinations. The CHP also designates personnel responsible for implementing the CHP, and specifies the procedures used to provide additional protection to workers exposed to particularly hazardous chemicals. OSH Act sections 2(b)(9), (6), and 8(c) authorize this information collection. See 29 U.S.C. 651(b)(9), 655, and 657.

    This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1218-0131.

    OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2015. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2014 (79 FR 74113).

    Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by April 30, 2015. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1218-0131. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

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

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

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

    Agency: DOL-OSHA.

    Title of Collection: Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories Standard.

    OMB Control Number: 1218-0131.

    Affected Public: Private Sector—businesses or other for-profits.

    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 64,404.

    Total Estimated Number of Responses: 1,026,010.

    Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 332,350 hours.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $46,540,670.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Michel Smyth, Departmental Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07278 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Public comments on the ICR are invited.

    DATES:

    The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201501-1220-003 (this link will only become active on the day following publication of this notice) or by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to [email protected]

    Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-BLS, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected] Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor—OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Departmental Information Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; or by email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to [email protected]

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 information collection. The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97) includes respondents born from 1980 through 1984 and lived in the United States when the survey began in 1997. The primary objective of the survey is to study the transition from full-time schooling to the establishment of careers and families. The longitudinal focus of the survey requires information to be collected about the same individuals over many years in order to trace their education, training, work experience, fertility, income, and program participation. Research based on the NLSY97 contributes to the formation of national policy in the areas of education, training, employment programs, and school-to-work transitions. This information collection has been classified as a revision, because there have been a few modifications to the existing NLSY97 questionnaire. The BLS Authorizing Statute authorizes this information collection. See 29 U.S.C. 1, 2.

    This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1220-0157. The current approval is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2015; however, the DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. New requirements would only take effect upon OMB approval. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2014 (79 FR 72704).

    Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1220-0157. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

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

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

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

    Agency: DOL-BLS.

    Title of Collection: National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997.

    OMB Control Number: 1220-0157.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 7,400.

    Total Estimated Number of Responses: 8,694

    Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 7,682 hours.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Michel Smyth, Departmental Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07297 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-24-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 408(b)(2) Regulation ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    On March 31, 2015, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 408(b)(2) Regulation,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Public comments on the ICR are invited.

    DATES:

    The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201503-1210-002 (this link will only become active on April 1, 2015) or by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-EBSA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected] Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Departmental Information Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; or by email: [email protected]

    For Further Information: Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) section 408(b)(2) regulation information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR 2550.408(b)(-2(c) that require certain retirement plan service providers to disclose information about their compensation and potential conflicts of interest to responsible plan fiduciaries. These disclosure requirements provide guidance for compliance with a statutory exemption from ERISA prohibited transaction provisions. Failing to satisfy the 408(b)(2) regulation disclosure requirements may result in provision of services prohibited by ERISA section 406(a)(1)(C), with consequences for both the responsible plan fiduciary and the covered service provider. ERISA section 408(b)(2) authorizes this information collection. See 29 U.S.C. 1108(b)(2).

    This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1210-0133.

    OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2015. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on October 15, 2014 (79 FR 61903).

    Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by April 30, 2015. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1210-0133. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

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

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

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

    Agency: DOL-EBSA.

    Title of Collection: Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 408(b)(2) Regulation.

    OMB Control Number: 1210-0133.

    Affected Public: Private Sector—businesses and other for profits.

    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 51,000.

    Total Estimated Number of Responses: 1,472,000.

    Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 1,040,000 hours.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $1,336,000.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Michel Smyth, Departmental Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07279 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-85,674] Levi Strauss & Co., Eugene, Oregon; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated on February 6, 2015, a state workforce official requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance applicable to workers and former workers of Levi Strauss & Company, Eugene, Oregon. The determination was issued on January 14, 2015 and the Notice of Determination was published in the Federal Register on February 18, 2015 (80 FR 8692).

    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:

    (1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;

    (2) If it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or

    (3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision.

    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the findings that worker separations at Levi Strauss & Co., Eugene, Oregon are not attributable to increased imports of articles or a shift in production of articles to a foreign country.

    The request for reconsideration asserts that although the workers are engaged in service-related activities, the workers perform production forecasting activities and order management support of Levi Strauss' production of clothing and apparel. The reconsideration application concludes that both activities drive production and has been shifted to a foreign country.

    The Department of Labor has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of March 2015. Michael W. Jaffe, Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07237 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Notice of Availability of Funds and Funding Opportunity Announcement for Training To Work 3—Adult Reentry AGENCY:

    Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA).

    Funding Opportunity Number: FOA-ETA-15-07.

    SUMMARY:

    The Employment and Training Administration (ETA), U.S. Department of Labor, announces the availability of approximately $27 million in grant funds authorized by the Workforce Investment Act and the Second Chance Act of 2007 for Training to Work 3—Adult Reentry. ETA plans to award approximately 20 grants of up to $1,360,000 each to serve male and female ex-offenders, referred to in the FOA as returning citizens.

    This FOA provides the opportunity for organizations to develop and implement career pathways programs in demand sectors and occupations for men and women, including veterans, and people with disabilities, who are at least 18 years old and who are enrolled in work release programs. The purpose of this program is to assist returning citizens transition back into their communities by gaining industry-recognized credentials and securing employment.

    The complete FOA and any subsequent FOA amendments in connection with this solicitation are described in further detail on ETA's Web site at http://www.doleta.gov/grants/ or on http://www.grants.gov. The Web sites provide application information, eligibility requirements, review and selection procedures, and other program requirements governing this solicitation.

    DATES:

    The closing date for receipt of applications under this announcement is May 1, 2015. Applications must be received no later than 4:00:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brinda Ruggles, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-4716, Washington, DC 20210; Telephone: 202-693-3437.

    The Grant Officer for this FOA is Melissa Abdullah.

    Signed March 24, 2015 in Washington, DC. Eric D. Luetkenhaus, Grant Officer/Division Chief, Employment and Training Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07236 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Sunshine Act Meetings; National Science Board

    The National Science Board's Committee on Programs and Plans (CPP) and Subcommittee on Facilities (SCF), pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:

    DATE AND TIME:

    Friday, April 3, 2015 at 1 p.m. EDT.

    SUBJECT MATTER:

    Chairmen's remarks and discussion of NSF's draft response to the Decadal Survey of Ocean Sciences (DSOS) report.

    STATUS:

    Closed.

    This meeting will be held by teleconference. Please refer to the National Science Board Web site www.nsf.gov/nsb for additional information and schedule updates (time, place, subject matter or status of meeting) which may be found at http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/notices/. Point of contact for this meeting is John Veysey at [email protected]

    Ann Bushmiller, Senior Counsel to the National Science Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07467 Filed 3-27-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Metallurgy & Reactor Fuels; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Metallurgy & Reactor Fuels will hold a meeting on April 7, 2015, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

    The meeting will be open to public attendance.

    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

    Tuesday, April 7, 2015—8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.

    The Subcommittee will discuss Consequential Steam Generator Tube Rupture (C-SGTR). The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.

    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Christopher Brown (Telephone 301-415-7111 or Email: [email protected]) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided to the DFO thirty minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the DFO one day before the meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the DFO with a CD containing each presentation at least thirty minutes before the meeting. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the Federal Register on October 13, 2014 (79 FR 59307-59308).

    Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs. Information regarding topics to be discussed, changes to the agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained from the Web site cited above or by contacting the identified DFO. Moreover, in view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with these references if such rescheduling would result in a major inconvenience.

    If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Mark L. Banks, Chief, Technical Support Branch, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07350 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026; NRC-2015-0074] Vogtle Electric Generating Station, Units 3 and 4; Southern Nuclear Operating Company; Annex Building Structure and Layout Changes AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Exemption and combined license amendment issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and is issuing License Amendment No. 27 to Combined Licenses (COL), NPF-91 and NPF-92. The COLs were issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., and Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia (the licensee); for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.

    The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information requested in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0074 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0074. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    • NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced. The request for the amendment and exemption were submitted by letter dated August 22, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14234A423). The licensee revised this request by letter dated September 23, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14266A656), and supplemented the request by letters dated October 30 and November 6, 2014 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14303A660 and ML14310A831, respectively).

    • NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chandu Patel, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3025; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

    The NRC is granting an exemption from Paragraph B of Section III, “Scope and Contents,” of appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) and issuing License Amendment No. 27 to COLs, NPF-91 and NPF-92, to the licensee. The exemption is required by Paragraph A.4 of Section VIII, “Processes for Changes and Departures,” appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 to allow the licensee to depart from Tier 1 information. With the requested amendment, the licensee sought:

    (a) Installation of an additional non-safety-related battery;

    (b) Revision to the annex building internal configuration by converting a shift turnover room to a battery room, adding an additional battery equipment room, and moving a fire area wall;

    (c) Increase in the height of a room in the annex building; and

    (d) Increase in thicknesses of certain annex building floor slabs.

    In addition, the proposed changes also include reconfiguring existing rooms and related room, wall, and access path changes and making changes to the corresponding Tier 1 information in appendix C to the Combined Licenses.

    These changes were necessary as part of structural and layout design modifications to the annex building.

    Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption request and the license amendment. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 52.7, and Section VIII.A.4. of appendix D to 10 CFR part 52. The license amendment was found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14323A649.

    Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VEGP Units 3 and 4 (COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92). The exemption documents for VEGP Units 3 and 4 can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14323A623 and ML14323A629, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14323A635 and ML14323A640, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.

    II. Exemption

    Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to Vogtle Units 3 and Unit 4. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:

    1. In a letter dated August 22, 2014, and revised by letter dated September 23, 2014, and supplemented by letters dated October 30 and November 6, 2014, the licensee requested from the Commission an exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, Section III.B, as part of license amendment request 13-038, “Annex Building Structure and Layout Changes” (LAR-13-038).

    For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1, “Evaluation of Exemption,” of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation, which can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14323A649, the Commission finds that:

    A. The exemption is authorized by law;

    B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;

    C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;

    D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;

    E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption; and

    F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.

    2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption to the provisions of 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, Section III.B, to allow departures from the certified Design Control Document Tier 1, Table 3.3-1, “Definition of Wall Thickness for Nuclear Island Buildings, Turbine Building, and Annex Building,” and Figure 3.3-11A, “Annex Building Plan View at Elevation 100′-0″ (sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI)). The proposed changes include non-system based design descriptions and other detailed information related to these design descriptions and associated ITAAC, such changes to concrete floor thicknesses, annex building wall location descriptions, and the interior configuration of the annex building as described in the licensee's request dated August 22, 2014, and revised by letter dated September 23, 2014, and supplemented by letters dated October 30 and November 6, 2014. This exemption is related to, and necessary for the granting of License Amendment No. 27, which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.

    3. As explained in Section 3.1, “Evaluation of Exemption,” of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML14323A649), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.

    4. This exemption is effective as of December 23, 2014.

    III. License Amendment Request

    By letter dated August 22, 2014, and revised by letter dated September 23, 2014, and supplemented by letters dated October 30 and November 6, 2014, the licensee requested that the NRC amend the COLs for VEGP, Units 3 and 4, COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92. The proposed amendment would depart from Tier 2 material previously incorporated into the Updated Final Safety Evaluation Report (UFSAR). Additionally, these Tier 2 changes involve changes to Tier 1 Information in the UFSAR, and the proposed amendment would also revise the associated material that has been included in Appendix C of each of the VEGP, Units 3 and 4 COLs. The requested amendment would revise the Tier 2 UFSAR information by revising UFSAR to (1) install an additional non-safety-related battery; (2) revise the annex building internal configuration; (3) increase the height of Containment Filtration Room A (Room 40551) by 4 feet from elevation (EL.) 146′-3″ to 150′-3″; and (4) increase concrete thicknesses from 6 inches to 8 inches in a number of floor slabs.

    Additionally, the licensee proposed consistency and editorial changes to Tier 1 Table 3.3-1, as well as the corresponding information in Appendix C. These changes were necessary as part of a design modification to the structure and layout of the annex building.

    The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.

    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal Register on October 14, 2014 (79 FR 61662). The September 23, 2014, application revision, and the October 30 and November 6, 2014, supplements had no effect on the no significant hazards consideration determination, and no comments were received during the 60-day comment period.

    The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.

    IV. Conclusion

    Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemption and issued the amendment that the licensee requested on August 22, 2014, and revised by letter dated September 23, 2014, and supplemented by letters dated October 30 and November 6, 2014. The exemption and amendment were issued on December 23, 2014 as part of a combined package to the licensee (ADAMS Accession No. ML14323A609).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of March 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Lawrence Burkhart, Chief, Licensing Branch 4, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07277 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2015-0073] Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Biweekly notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.

    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from March 5, 2015 to March 18, 2015. The last biweekly notice was published on March 17, 2015.

    DATES:

    Comments must be filed by April 30, 2015. A request for a hearing must be filed by June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0073. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kay Goldstein, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1506, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0073 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0073.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0073, facility name, unit number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.

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

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

    II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.

    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.

    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

    A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.

    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.

    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.

    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

    B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's “Guidance for Electronic Submission,” which is available on the agency's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software.

    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.

    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.

    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. However, a request to intervene will require including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).

    For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.

    Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: November 24, 2014. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14330A327.

    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would modify the Technical Specifications (TS) to correct non-conservative setpoints. Specificall