Federal Register Vol. 80, No.63,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 63 (April 2, 2015)

Page Range17683-18081
FR Document

80_FR_63
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 18077 - Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled ActivitiesPDF
80 FR 18081 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to South SudanPDF
80 FR 18075 - Education and Sharing Day, U.S.A., 2015PDF
80 FR 18073 - C[eacute]sar Ch[aacute]vez Day, 2015PDF
80 FR 17744 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 17803 - Order of Suspension of Trading; Earth Dragon Resources, Inc.PDF
80 FR 17807 - In the Matter of Urban AG Corp.; Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
80 FR 17735 - Sunshine Act NoticePDF
80 FR 17724 - Order Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
80 FR 17722 - Order Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
80 FR 17718 - Order Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
80 FR 17716 - In the Matter of: Precision Image Corporation, 22424 76th Avenue Southeast, Woodinville, WA 98072PDF
80 FR 17725 - Order Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
80 FR 17742 - 2015 Annual Meeting of the Ozone Transport CommissionPDF
80 FR 17818 - Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Exemption Renewal for Greyhound Lines, Inc.PDF
80 FR 17823 - Additional Designations, Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation ActPDF
80 FR 17743 - Request for Nominations of Candidates to the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)PDF
80 FR 17742 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under EPA's Natural Gas STAR ProgramPDF
80 FR 17757 - Solicitation of Written Comments on Draft National Pain StrategyPDF
80 FR 17761 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request Electronic Prior Approval Submission System (ePASS) (NHLBI)PDF
80 FR 17772 - Additional Clarifying Guidance, Waivers, and Alternative Requirements for Grantees in Receipt of Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Funds Under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013PDF
80 FR 17715 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Master Development Plan for the Armed Forces Retirement Home in Washington, DCPDF
80 FR 17779 - Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Liquor Control StatutePDF
80 FR 17769 - Implementation of the Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; New System of Records, Rent Reform DemonstrationPDF
80 FR 17790 - Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request, Proposed Collection: Let's Move! Museums & Gardens ProgramPDF
80 FR 17766 - Implementation of the Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; New System of Records, the Housing Search Process for Racial and Ethnic Minorities Evaluation Data FilesPDF
80 FR 17719 - Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review, and Consideration of Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order in PartPDF
80 FR 17717 - Honey From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 17722 - Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 17687 - Safety Zone: Tesoro Terminal Protest: Port of Long Beach Harbor; Pacific Ocean, CaliforniaPDF
80 FR 17685 - Safety Zone: Marina del Rey Fireworks Show, Santa Monica Bay; Marina del Rey, CaliforniaPDF
80 FR 17714 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-SuperTracker Information Collection for Registration, Login, and Food Intake and Physical Activity Assessment InformationPDF
80 FR 17683 - Safety Zone; Sellwood Bridge Construction, Willamette River, Portland, ORPDF
80 FR 17822 - Community Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) Matching Grant Program-Availability of Application for Federal Financial AssistancePDF
80 FR 17824 - Tax Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) Program Availability of Application PackagesPDF
80 FR 17816 - New Hampshire Disaster #NH-00029PDF
80 FR 17816 - GMB Mezzanine Capital II, L.P. License No. 05/05-0299; Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of InterestPDF
80 FR 17729 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the East Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway Inlet and Jamaica Bay Reformulation StudyPDF
80 FR 17789 - Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request, Proposed Collection: Museums for All programPDF
80 FR 17760 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 17787 - Comment Request for Information Collection for Reintegration of Ex-Offenders-Adult Reporting System, Extension With RevisionsPDF
80 FR 17729 - Africa Partnership Forum (APF) Day; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 17713 - Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting SystemPDF
80 FR 17822 - CSX Transportation, Inc.-Abandonment Exemption-in Raleigh County, W. VaPDF
80 FR 17764 - Notice of Availability: Test Tools and Test Procedures Approved by the National Coordinator for the ONC HIT Certification ProgramPDF
80 FR 17725 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 17726 - Order Renewing Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges; X-TREME Motors LLC, et al.PDF
80 FR 17819 - Hours of Service of Drivers: National Ready Mixed Concrete Association; Application for Exemption; Final DispositionPDF
80 FR 17821 - Applications of Jet Aviation Flight Services, Inc. for Certificate AuthorityPDF
80 FR 17745 - Radio Broadcasting Services; AM or FM Proposals To Change the Community of LicensePDF
80 FR 17765 - Abuse-Deterrent Opioids-Evaluation and Labeling; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 17745 - Media Bureau Seeks Comment for Report Required by the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014PDF
80 FR 17821 - Illinois Central Railroad Company-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in Sangamon and Montgomery Counties, Ill.PDF
80 FR 17748 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 17749 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 17784 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Reinstatement, With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection for Which Approval Has Expired: 2015 Police Public Contact Survey (PPCS)PDF
80 FR 17785 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Approval for New Collection; FBI National Academy: United States Holocaust Memorial's Law Enforcement and Society QuestionnairePDF
80 FR 17774 - Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; North American Woodcock Singing Ground SurveyPDF
80 FR 17749 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; ExtensionPDF
80 FR 17757 - Biomedical Engineering Society and FDA Frontiers in Medical Devices: Innovations in Modeling and SimulationPDF
80 FR 17736 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Application for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Program and Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) of 2009 ProgramPDF
80 FR 17732 - Supplemental Record of Decision for Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) SonarPDF
80 FR 17775 - Endangered and Threatened Species Permit ApplicationsPDF
80 FR 17728 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; NOAA Marine Debris Program Performance Progress ReportPDF
80 FR 17777 - Advisory Council on Wildlife TraffickingPDF
80 FR 17760 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial ReviewPDF
80 FR 17763 - Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)PDF
80 FR 17762 - Subcommittee on Procedures Review, Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or Advisory Board), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)PDF
80 FR 17764 - Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis: Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
80 FR 17758 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; New Animal Drugs for Investigational UsesPDF
80 FR 17737 - El Dorado Irrigation District; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
80 FR 17742 - California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice Setting Due Date for Interevention in Section 206 ProceedingPDF
80 FR 17738 - Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, Llc; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Garden State Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental IssuesPDF
80 FR 17740 - McCoy Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 17738 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 17741 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 17740 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 17783 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-3d Pdf Consortium, Inc.PDF
80 FR 17785 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-High Density Packaging User Group International Inc.PDF
80 FR 17784 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-ASTM International StandardsPDF
80 FR 17786 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Petroleum Environmental Research Forum Project No. 2013-07, Stream Speciation UpdatePDF
80 FR 17786 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Institute of Electrical and Electronics EngineersPDF
80 FR 17786 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-The Open Group, L.L.C.PDF
80 FR 17808 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Establish Procedures Regarding the Monthly Resizing of its Clearing Fund and the Addition of Financial ResourcesPDF
80 FR 17804 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees for the BATS One Market Data ProductPDF
80 FR 17797 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees for the BATS One Market Data ProductPDF
80 FR 17812 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees for the BATS One Market Data ProductPDF
80 FR 17791 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees for the BATS One Market Data ProductPDF
80 FR 17801 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change in Connection With the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of National Stock Exchange Holdings, Inc., the Exchange's Parent Corporation, and the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the ExchangePDF
80 FR 17795 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the Innovator IBD® 50 Fund Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600PDF
80 FR 17731 - National Security Education Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 17733 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
80 FR 17817 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 17788 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for CommentsPDF
80 FR 17824 - Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 17732 - Charter Amendment of Department of Defense Federal Advisory CommitteesPDF
80 FR 17758 - National Institute Of Mental Health; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 17765 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Family Unity Benefits, Form I-817; Revision of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
80 FR 17721 - Marine Mammals; File No. 14856PDF
80 FR 17748 - Notice of Agreement FiledPDF
80 FR 17703 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP); Amending the NCP for Public Notices for Specific Superfund ActivitiesPDF
80 FR 17894 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records NoticePDF
80 FR 17706 - Clarification on Policy for Additional Name Requests Regarding FireworksPDF
80 FR 17714 - Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers; Notice of Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 17692 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; State Boards Requirements; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead and Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF
80 FR 17712 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; State Boards Requirements; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead and Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF
80 FR 17697 - Difenoconazole; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
80 FR 17689 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alabama; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF
80 FR 17763 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 18036 - Exemption for Certain Exchange MembersPDF
80 FR 17974 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for the Northern Long-Eared Bat With 4(d) RulePDF
80 FR 17826 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for PumpsPDF
80 FR 17708 - Small Business Development Center Program RevisionsPDF
80 FR 17918 - Changes To Implement the Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial DesignsPDF

Issue

80 63 Thursday, April 2, 2015 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Office of Advocacy and Outreach

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: SuperTracker Information Collection for Registration, Login, and Food Intake and Physical Activity Assessment Information, 17714-17715 2015-07592
Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Changes under National Cooperative Research and Production Act: 3D PDF Consortium, Inc., 17783 2015-07529 ASTM International Standards, 17784-17785 2015-07527 High Density Packaging User Group International, Inc., 17785 2015-07528 INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS, 17786-17787 2015-07525 Petroleum Environmental Research Forum Project No. 2013-07, Stream Speciation Update, 17786 2015-07526 THE OPEN GROUP, LLC, 17786 2015-07524 Armed Armed Forces Retirement Home NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Master Development Plan for Armed Forces Retirement Home in Washington, DC, 17715-17716 2015-07621 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Charter Renewals: Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis, 17764-17765 2015-07541 Meetings: Advisory Committee to the Director, 17763 2015-07543 Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel, 17760 2015-07544 2015-07545 Subcommittee on Procedures Review, Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 17762-17763 2015-07542 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 17763-17764 2015-07322 Children Children and Families Administration PROPOSED RULES Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System, 17713 2015-07574 NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 17894-17916 2015-07440 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Marina del Rey Fireworks Show, Santa Monica Bay; Marina del Rey, California, 17685-17687 2015-07594 Sellwood Bridge Construction, Willamette River, Portland, OR, 17683-17685 2015-07591 Tesoro Terminal Protest, Port of Long Beach Harbor, Pacific Ocean, CA, 17687-17689 2015-07595 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Development Administration

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

Defense Department Defense Department See

Engineers Corps

See

Navy Department

NOTICES Arms Sales, 17733-17735 2015-07515 Charter Amendments: Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Board of Actuaries, 17732-17733 2015-07508 Meetings: Africa Partnership Forum Day, 17729 2015-07575 National Security Education Board, 17731-17732 2015-07516
Defense Nuclear Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 17735-17736 2015-07648 Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Determinations of Eligibility; Petitions: Trade Adjustment Assistance, 17725 2015-07570 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program and Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act Program, 17736-17737 2015-07550 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Ex-Offenders—Adult Reporting System, 17787-17788 2015-07576 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Pumps, 17826-17892 2015-06947
Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: East Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway Inlet and Jamaica Bay Reformulation Study, 17729-17731 2015-07580 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Alabama; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 17689-17692 2015-07349 Virginia; State Boards Requirements; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead and Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 17692-17696 2015-07372 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; Amendments for Public Notices for Specific Superfund Activities, 17703-17706 2015-07474 Pesticide Tolerances: Difenoconazole, 17697-17703 2015-07354 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Virginia; State Boards Requirements; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead and Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 17712-17713 2015-07371 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements under EPA's Natural Gas STAR Program, 17742-17743 2015-07630 Meetings: Ozone Transport Commission, 17742 2015-07637 Requests for Nominations: EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, 17743-17744 2015-07634 Farm Credit Farm Credit Administration NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 17744-17745 2015-07682 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Media Bureau Seeks Comments for Report Required under the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014, 17745-17748 2015-07561 Radio Broadcasting Services: AM or FM Proposals To Change The Community of License, 17745 2015-07563 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: El Dorado Irrigation District, 17737-17738 2015-07538 Combined Filings, 17738, 17740-17742 2015-07530 2015-07531 2015-07532 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Garden State Expansion Project, 17738-17740 2015-07536 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: McCoy Solar, LLC, 17740 2015-07533 Investigations: California Independent System Operator Corp.; Intervention Due Date, 17742 2015-07537 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 17748 2015-07487 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Hours of Service of Drivers; Exemption Applications: National Ready Mixed Concrete Association; Final Disposition, 17819-17821 2015-07567 Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Exemptions: Greyhound Lines, Inc., 17818-17819 2015-07636 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Change in Bank Control Notices: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 17749 2015-07556 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 17748 2015-07557 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 17749-17757 2015-07552 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Northern Long-eared Bat; Threatened Species Status, 17974-18033 2015-07069 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey, 17774-17775 2015-07553 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants Permit Applications, 17775-17777 2015-07548 Meetings: Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking, 17777-17779 2015-07546 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: New Animal Drugs for Investigational Uses, 17758-17760 2015-07539 Guidance: Abuse-Deterrent Opioids -- Evaluation and Labeling, 17765 2015-07562 Meetings: Biomedical Engineering Society and FDA Frontiers in Medical Devices -- Innovations in Modeling and Simulation; Public Conferences, 17757-17758 2015-07551 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 17823-17824 2015-07635 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Test Tools and Test Procedures Approved by the National Coordinator for the ONC HIT Certification Program, 17764 2015-07572
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 17760-17761 2015-07577 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recover Funds, etc.: Clarifying Guidance, Waivers, and Alternative Requirements for Grantees, 17772-17774 2015-07622 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 17766-17772 2015-07610 2015-07613 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Liquor Control Statutes: Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, 17779-17783 2015-07614 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Denials of Export Privileges: Brian Keith Bishop, 17725-17726 2015-07638 Erik Antonio Perez-Bazan, 17722-17723 2015-07642 Ivon Castaneda, 17718-17719 2015-07641 Precision Image Corp., 17716-17717 2015-07640 Ronald Alexander Dobek, 17724-17725 2015-07643 X-TREME Motors, LLC, et al., 17726-17728 2015-07569 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Funding Availability: Community Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Matching Grant Program, 17822-17823 2015-07589 Tax Counseling for the Elderly Program; Application Packages, 17824 2015-07588 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Honey from the People's Republic of China, 17717-17718 2015-07599 Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from Mexico, 17722 2015-07598 Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 17719-17721 2015-07601 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 2015 Police Public Contact Survey, 17784 2015-07555 FBI National Academy -- United States Holocaust Memorial's Law Enforcement and Society Questionnaire, 17785-17786 2015-07554
Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Records Schedules, 17788-17789 2015-07512 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Let's Move! Museums and Gardens program, 17790-17791 2015-07611 Museums for All program, 17789-17790 2015-07579 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Electronic Prior Approval Submission System, 17761-17762 2015-07623 Draft National Pain Strategy, 17757 2015-07626 Meetings: National Institute Of Mental Health, 17758 2015-07507 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Marine Debris Program Performance Progress Report, 17728-17729 2015-07547 Permit Amendment Applications: Marine Mammals, 17721-17722 2015-07493 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Records of Decision: Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active Sonar, 17732 2015-07549 Advocacy Outreach Office of Advocacy and Outreach NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers, 17714 2015-07418 Patent Patent and Trademark Office RULES International Registration of Industrial Designs; Hague Agreement Implementation, 17918-17971 2015-06397 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RULES Clarification on Policy for Additional Name Requests Regarding Fireworks, 17706-17707 2015-07425 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: Cesar Chavez Day (Proc. 9243), 18071-18074 2015-07783 Education and Sharing Day, U.S.A. (Proc. 9244), 18075-18076 2015-07784 EXECUTIVE ORDERS Defense and National Security: Cyber-Enabled Activities; Blocking Property of Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious (EO 13694), 18077-18079 2015-07788 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS South Sudan; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of March 31, 2015), 18081 2015-07786 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission PROPOSED RULES Exemption for Certain Exchange Members, 18036-18070 2015-07293 NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 17791-17795 2015-07519 BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., 17812-17816 2015-07520 EDGA Exchange, Inc., 17797-17801 2015-07521 EDGX Exchange, Inc., 17804-17807 2015-07522 National Stock Exchange, Inc., 17801-17803 2015-07518 NYSE Arca, Inc., 17795-17797 2015-07517 The Options Clearing Corp., 17808-17812 2015-07523 Suspension of Trading Orders: Earth Dragon Resources, Inc., 17803 2015-07674 Urban AG Corp., 17807-17808 2015-07672 Small Business Small Business Administration PROPOSED RULES Small Business Development Center Program; Revisions, 17708-17712 2015-06854 NOTICES Disaster Declarations: New Hampshire, 17816-17817 2015-07583 Exemptions: GMB Mezzanine Capital II, L.P., 17816 2015-07582 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 17817-17818 2015-07514 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: CSX Transportation, Inc., Raleigh County, WV, 17822 2015-07573 Discontinuance of Service Exemptions: Illinois Central Railroad Co. in Sangamon and Montgomery Counties, Il, 17821 2015-07558 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

NOTICES Certificates of Authority; Applications: Jet Aviation Flight Services, Inc., 17821-17822 2015-07564
Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals Application for Family Unity Benefits, 17765-17766 2015-07506 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Veterans' Rural Health Advisory Committee, 17824 2015-07509 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Energy Department, 17826-17892 2015-06947 Part III Health and Human Services Department, Children and Families Administration, 17894-17916 2015-07440 Part IV Commerce Department, Patent and Trademark Office, 17918-17971 2015-06397 Part V Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 17974-18033 2015-07069 Part VI Securities and Exchange Commission, 18036-18070 2015-07293 Part VII Presidential Documents, 18071-18079, 18081 2015-07783 2015-07784 2015-07788 2015-07786 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 63 Thursday, April 2, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0187] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Sellwood Bridge Construction, Willamette River, Portland, OR AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone in Portland, OR. This safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the maritime public and construction crews during construction of the Sellwood Bridge by prohibiting unauthorized persons and vessels from entering the regulated area unless authorized by the Sector Columbia River Captain of the Port or his designated representatives.

DATES:

This rule is effective without actual notice from April 2, 2015 until June 10, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from the date the rule was signed, March 19, 2015, through April 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0187]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Ken Lawrenson, Waterways Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Portland, Coast Guard; telephone 503-240-9319, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register TFR Temporary Final Rule A. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest”. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because to do so would be impracticable. Based on the date on which notice of construction was given, a notice and comment period could not be held before the need for the safety zone restrictions, which will go into effect March 19, 2015.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because the work will commence and vessel movements in this area need to be restricted during the period of construction, which commences immediately.

B. Basis and Purpose

Coast Guard Captains of the Port are granted authority to establish safety zones in 33 CFR 1.05-1(f) for safety and environmental purposes as described in 33 CFR part 165.

The construction of bridges creates hazardous conditions for both the maritime public and the construction crews because of crane barges positioned within the temporary navigation channel of the river, anchor lines protruding outward from the barges, falling debris, and the suspension of heavy loads over the waterway. A safety zone is necessary to restrict vessel movement and reduce traffic going under the bridge during these critical lifts to ensure the safety of the maritime public and construction crews.

C. Discussion of the Rule

The rule establishes a Safety Zone in the Thirteenth Coast Guard District.

The safety zone created by this rule will cover all waters bank to bank of the Willamette River encompassed within chart 18528 starting at a line drawn from 45°27′57″ N/122°40′04″ W then east to 45°27′57″ N/122°39′51″ W then south to 45°27′47″ N/122°39′44″ W then west to 45°27′47″ N/122°40′04″ W then north to 45°27′57″N/122°40′04″ W.

The rule will be enforced while construction is underway. Construction is currently scheduled to take place from March 19, 2015 through 6:00 p.m. on April 2, 2015 and again starting at 7:00 a.m. on May 15, 2015 through 6:00 p.m. on May 27, 2015. The Coast Guard will notify mariners of any changes to the construction schedule and enforcement of this safety zone via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners. This rule has been enforced with actual notice since March 19, 2015.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

The Coast Guard has made this determination based on the fact that the safety zone created by this rule is small in size, and vessels may still transit through the area at a reduced speed of five miles per hour.

2. Impact on Small Entities

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

This rule may affect the following entities some of which may be small entities: the owners and operators of vessels intending to operate in the area covered by the safety zone created in this rule. The safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because vessels may still be able to transit a one hundred thirty eight foot span of the temporary navigation channel at the center of the river at a reduced speed when deemed safe by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. The Coast Guard has contacted one commercial boat operator to inform them of the safety zone and discuss the potential impact of the safety zone on operations. The operator indicated that impacts on business would be minimal. Additionally, the Coast Guard ensured the construction contractor contacted the affected small business entities most likely to be impacted.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is amending 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

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

33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-19(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Add § 165.T13-0187 to read as follows:
§ 165.T13-0187 Safety Zone; Sellwood Bridge Construction, Willamette River, Portland, OR.

(a) Safety Zone. The following area is a designated safety zone:

(1) Location. This safety zone will cover all waters bank to bank of the Willamette River encompassed within a line drawn from 45° 27′57″ N/122° 40′04″ W then east to 45° 27′57″ N/122° 39′51″ W then south to 45° 27′47″ N/122° 39′44″ W then west to 45° 27′47″ N/122° 40′04″ W then north to 45° 27′57″ N/122° 40′04″ W.

(2) Enforcement Period. This safety zone is in effect from March 19, 2015 through June 10, 2015. The rule will be enforced while in effect based on construction activity and the presence of construction equipment that create a safety risk to mariners. Based on the current construction schedule, the rule will be enforced from March 19, 2015 to 6:00 p.m. on April 2, 2015 and again starting at 7:00 a.m. on May 15, 2015 through 6:00 p.m. on May 27, 2015. The Coast Guard will inform mariners of any change to these periods of enforcement via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.

(b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR part 165, subpart C, no person may enter or remain in the safety zone created in this section or bring, cause to be brought, or allow to remain in the safety zone created in this section any vehicle, vessel, or object unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.

(c) Enforcement. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer may enforce the rules in this section. In the navigable waters of the United States to which this section applies, when immediate action is required and representatives of the Coast Guard are not present or are not present in sufficient force to provide effective enforcement of this section, any Federal Law Enforcement Officer or Oregon Law Enforcement Officer may enforce the rules contained in this section pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 70118. In addition, the Captain of the Port may be assisted by other federal, state, or local agencies in enforcing this section.

Dated: March 19, 2015. D. J. Travers Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Columbia River.
[FR Doc. 2015-07591 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0155] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone: Marina del Rey Fireworks Show, Santa Monica Bay; Marina del Rey, California AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in Marina del Rey around the fireworks launch site located on the south jetty. This temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the waterway users during the fireworks display that will take place in the vicinity of the Marina del Rey Main Channel. Entry into this temporary safety zone will be prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Los Angeles—Long Beach, or her designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective on April 10, 2015 from 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0155]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email LCDR Brandon Link, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles—Long Beach; telephone (310) 521-3860, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule as it would be impracticable due to the short notice of the event.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register due to the short notice of the event.

B. Basis and Purpose

The legal basis for this rulemaking can be found in 33 CFR 1.05-1 which authorizes the Coast Guard to establish and define safety zones. The fireworks fallout zone will impede normal boating traffic in the Marina del Rey Main Channel. Due to the potentially hazardous conditions, this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of all waterway users.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

The U.S. Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on April 10, 2015 encompassing all navigable waters from the surface to the sea floor within a 400 foot radius around the fireworks launch site on the south jetty in approximate position 33-57.742N 118-27.380W. This temporary safety zone will be enforced from 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. During the enforcement period, vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within the designated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or her designated representative. Sector Los Angeles—Long Beach may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 310-521-3801. General boating public will be notified prior to the enforcement of the temporary safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

The implementation of this temporary safety zone is necessary for the protection of all waterway users. The size of the zone is the minimum necessary to provide adequate protection for the waterways users, adjoining areas, and the public. Any hardships experienced by persons or vessels are considered minimal compared to the interest in protecting the public. Accordingly, full regulatory evaluation under paragraph 10 (e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of the DHS is unnecessary.

2. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor within the designated area during the designated enforcement times. This temporary safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) Vessel traffic can pass safely around the area, (ii) this zone is limited in scope and duration, (iii) the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 prior to and while the safety zone is enforced.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

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

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

33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 1.16 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Add 165.T11-688 to read as follows:
§ 165.T11-688 Safety Zone: Marina del Rey Fireworks Show, Santa Monica Bay; Marina del Rey, California.

(a) Location. The limits of the safety zone are as follows: encompassing all navigable waters from the surface to the sea floor within a 400 foot radius around the fireworks launch site on the south jetty in approximate position 33-57.742N 118-27.380W.

(b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced on April 10, 2015. The temporary safety zone will be enforced from 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. General boating public will be notified prior to the enforcement of the temporary safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

(c) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within the designated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or her designated representative. Sector Los Angeles—Long Beach may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 310-521-3801.

Dated: March 19, 2015. J. F. Williams, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Los Angeles—Long Beach.
[FR Doc. 2015-07594 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0163] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone: Tesoro Terminal Protest: Port of Long Beach Harbor; Pacific Ocean, California AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the Pacific Ocean to encompass waters within the Port of Long Beach. The safety zone will be established as a result of specific waterside protest at Tesoro Terminals and in support of the safe navigation of all waterway users. Entry into the zone will be prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Los Angeles—Long Beach, or her designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective without actual notice from April 2, 2015 until April 30, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from the date the rule was signed, March 13, 2015, until April 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0163]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email LTJG Jevon James, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles—Long Beach; telephone (310) 521-3860, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule as it would be impracticable due to the short notice of the event and the limited duration this rule will be enforced.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register due to the short notice of the event and the limited duration this rule will be enforced.

B. Basis and Purpose

The legal basis for this rulemaking can be found in 33 CFR 1.05-1 which authorizes the Coast Guard to establish and define safety zones. With recent local labor disputes, protestors have targeted Tesoro Terminals within the Ports of Los Angeles—Long Beach. The Coast Guard anticipates water based demonstrations which may impede the safe navigation of vessels coming to and leaving Tesoro Terminals, as well as the demonstrators themselves. Thus, the Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on all navigable waters of the Pacific Ocean, from the surface to the sea floor, 100 yards in all direction of the following berths in the Port of Long Beach: Pier B 76-77, Pier B 84-87, and Pier T 121.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

The U.S. Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone encompassing all navigable waters from the surface to the sea floor, 100 yards in all direction of the following berths in the Port of Long Beach: Pier B 76-77, Pier B 84-87, and Pier T 121. The temporary safety zone will be enforced throughout each day. During the enforcement period, vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within the designated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or her designated representative. Sector Los Angeles—Long Beach may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 310-521-3801. General boating public will be notified prior to the enforcement of the temporary safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

The implementation of this temporary safety zone is necessary for the protection of all waterway users. The size of the zone is the minimum necessary to provide adequate protection for the waterways users, adjoining areas, and the public. Any hardships experienced by persons or vessels are considered minimal compared to the interest in protecting the public. Accordingly, full regulatory evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of the DHS is unnecessary.

2. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor within the designated area during the designated enforcement times. This temporary safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) Vessel traffic can pass safely around the area, (ii) this zone is limited in scope and duration, (iii) the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 prior to and while the safety zone is enforced.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

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

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

33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 1.16 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Add § 165.T11-687 to read as follows:
§ 165.T11-687 Safety Zone: Tesoro Terminal Protest: Port of Long Beach Harbor; Pacific Ocean, California

(a) Location. The limits of the safety zone are as follows: Encompassing all navigable waters of Captain of the Port Zone LA-LB from the surface to the sea floor, within 100 yards in all direction of the following berths in the Port of Long Beach: Pier B 76-77, Pier B 84-87, and Pier T 121.

(b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced throughout the entirety of each day from March 13-April 30, 2015. The general boating public will be notified prior to the enforcement of the temporary safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

(c) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within the designated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or her designated representative. Sector Los Angeles—Long Beach may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 310-521-3801.

Dated: March 13, 2015. J.F. Williams, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Los Angeles—Long Beach.
[FR Doc. 2015-07595 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0689; FRL-9925-53-Region 4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alabama; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve in part and disapprove in part, the August 20, 2012, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, provided by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) for inclusion into the Alabama SIP. This final rulemaking pertains to the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an “infrastructure” SIP submission. ADEM certified that the Alabama SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Alabama. With the exception of provisions pertaining to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting, interstate transport, and visibility protection requirements for which EPA is taking no action in this rulemaking, and provisions respecting state boards for which EPA is taking action to disapprove, EPA is taking final action to approve Alabama's infrastructure SIP submission provided to EPA on August 20, 2012, as satisfying the required infrastructure elements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

DATES:

This rule will be effective May 4, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0689. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section (formerly the Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning and Implementation Branch (formerly the Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nacosta C. Ward, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9140. Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic mail at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS. Section 110(a) of the CAA generally requires states to make a SIP submission to meet applicable requirements in order to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. These SIP submissions are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIP submissions. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make an infrastructure SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the infrastructure SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affect the content of the submission. The contents of such infrastructure SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains. In the case of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states typically have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous ozone NAAQS.

More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these requirements include basic structural SIP elements such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements of section 110(a)(2) are summarized below and in EPA's September 13, 2013, memorandum entitled “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).” 1

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

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

• 110(a)(2)(C): Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources 2

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

• 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate Pollution Transport

• 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and International Air Pollution

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers

• 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions

• 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas 3

3 As mentioned above, this element is not relevant to today's rulemaking.

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public Notification, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Visibility Protection

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling Data

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected Local Entities

On January 21, 2015, EPA proposed to approve in part and disapprove in part, Alabama's August 20, 2012, 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission with the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), which EPA will address in a separate action. EPA also proposed to disapprove Alabama's infrastructure submission for section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) pertaining to state board requirements. See 80 FR 2851.

II. EPA's Response to Comments

EPA received one comment on its January 21, 2015, proposed action.

Comment: The commenter suggests that the EPA official who signed the proposed SIP approval/disapproval, the Deputy Regional Administrator for Region 4, was not delegated to sign SIP actions.

EPA's Response: The commenter is incorrect. Under CAA section 110(k) the EPA Administrator is tasked with acting on SIP submittals by approving or disapproving the submittal in whole or in part. It is the EPA's policy that, in order for other Agency management officials to act on behalf of the Administrator, the authority must be delegated officially. These official delegations are recorded in the “EPA Delegations Manual.” Under EPA Delegation 1-21. Federal Register (1200 TN 543, 4/22/2002), the EPA Administrator has delegated the authority to sign and submit proposed actions on SIPs for publication in the Federal Register to the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation and to Regional Administrators. This delegation allows for this authority to be redelegated to the Deputies of the authorized officials. Based on the authority to redelegate provided in Delegation 1-21, EPA Region 4 redelegated the authority to sign and submit for publication in the Federal Register proposed SIPs to the Deputy Regional Administrator (See EPA Region 4 Delegation 1-21). Therefore, an appropriate EPA official, the Region 4 Deputy Regional Administrator, signed and submitted the proposal to approve in part and disapprove in part Alabama's August 20, 2012, infrastructure SIP submission. Of note, an earlier Delegation 7-10. Approval/Disapproval of State Implementation Plans (1200 TN 441, 5/6/97) did not allow redelegation of the authority to act on proposed SIP actions beyond the Regional Administrator. Since Delegation 1-21 post-dates 7-10 and specifically addresses the authority at issue, the authority to sign and submit proposed actions on SIPs for publication in the Federal Register, it is the applicable delegation. Delegation 1-21 does not change the limitation on redelegation beyond the Regional Administrator found in Delegation 7-10 for final actions on SIPs.

III. Final Action

With the exceptions described below, EPA is taking final action to approve ADEM's infrastructure SIP submission, submitted August 20, 2012, for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS because it meets the above described infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is disapproving in part section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of Alabama's infrastructure submission because Alabama's August 20, 2012, submission did not contain provisions to comply with the requirements of section 128 of the CAA for state boards. This final approval in part and disapproval in part, however, does not include the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), which are being addressed by EPA in a separate action. With the exceptions noted above Alabama has addressed the elements of the CAA 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements pursuant to section 110 of the CAA to ensure that the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Alabama.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: March 19, 2015. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart B—Alabama
2. Section 52.50(e) is amended by adding a new entry for “110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards” at the end of the table to read as follows:
§ 52.50 Identification of plan.

(e) * * *

EPA Approved Alabama Non-Regulatory Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable
  • geographic or
  • nonattainment area
  • State submittal date/effective date EPA approval date Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 7/17/2012 4/2/2015 [Insert citation of publication] With the exception of PSD permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J); interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II), 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J).
    3. Section 52.53 is amended by adding paragraph (a), and adding and reserving paragraph (b), to read as follows:
    § 52.53 Approval status.

    (a) Disapproval. Submittal from the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) on August 20, 2012, to address the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 2008 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards concerning state board requirements. EPA is disapproving section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of ADEM's submittal because the Alabama SIP lacks provisions respecting state boards per section 128 of the CAA for the 2008 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

    (b) [Reserved]

    [FR Doc. 2015-07349 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0040; FRL-9925-46-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; State Boards Requirements; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead and Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions consist of adding a new regulation from the Virginia Administrative Code and a revised regulation which includes new, associated definitions. This rulemaking action also approves an infrastructure element directly related to the regulations being added for several previously submitted infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the 2008 Ozone (O3) NAAQS, the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) NAAQS, and the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS. EPA is approving these revisions in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on June 1, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by May 4, 2015. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0040 by one of the following methods:

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

    B. Email: [email protected]

    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0040, Marilyn Powers, Acting Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Air Protection Division, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0040. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Section 128 of the CAA requires SIPs to include certain requirements regarding State Boards; section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA also references these requirements. Section 128(a) requires SIPs to contain provisions that: (1) Any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA shall have at least a majority of its members represent the public interest and not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders under the CAA; and (2) any potential conflict of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed.

    On December 22, 2014, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) submitted a formal revision to its SIP for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The SIP revision consists of adding a new regulation, 9VAC5-170-210(A), and adding new, associated definitions to 9VAC5-170-20, all of which pertain to the conflict of interest requirements of CAA sections 128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for all criteria pollutants of the NAAQS.

    In addition, this rulemaking action approves the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) infrastructure element from the following Virginia infrastructure SIP submittals for each identified NAAQS: March 9, 2012 for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, July 23, 2012 for the 2008 O3 NAAQS, May 30, 2013 for 2010 NO2 NAAQS, and June 23, 2014 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (collectively, the Four Submittals). For the Four Submittals, EPA had previously approved those submittals as addressing certain requirements in section 110(a)(2) and specifically stated EPA would take later, separate action on the requirements in section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (which requires a state's SIP to meet the requirements of CAA section 128) for each of the NAAQS addressed.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision

    Virginia's December 22, 2014 SIP revision submittal consists of adding the new regulation, 9VAC5-170-210(A), and two new related definitions, “Disclosure form” and “Potential conflict of interest,” to 9VAC5-170-20. Regulation 9VAC5-170-210(A) requires that the board (referring to the State Air Pollution Control Board (SAPCB) or its designated representative) and the director (referring to the director of the VADEQ or a designated representative) shall adequately disclose any potential conflicts of interest. The regulation also requires that such disclosure be made annually, as required by section 2.2-3114 of the Code of Virginia, and through the applicable disclosure forms set forth in sections 2.2-3117 and 2.2-3118 of the Code of Virginia. The added regulation also states that all terms used in the disclosure forms shall retain their meaning as set forth under the Virginia State and Local Conflict of Interests Act (section 2.2-3100 et seq. of the Code of Virginia) which includes the disclosure forms previously described in sections 2.2-3117 and 2.2-3118 of the Code of Virginia. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, only the SAPCB and the director of VADEQ (or their respective designated representatives) have the power to approve CAA permits and enforcement orders.

    III. The State Boards Requirements and EPA's Analysis of Virginia's Submittals

    As previously stated, section 128 of the CAA requires that SIPs include provisions which provide: (1) Any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA have at least a majority of its members represent the public interest and not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders under the CAA; and (2) any potential conflict of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed.

    For section 128(a)(1), Virginia previously submitted the provisions of Section 10.1-1302 of the Code of Virginia as a SIP revision on June 11, 2010; this SIP revision was subsequently approved by EPA on October 11, 2011. See 76 FR 62635.

    To address requirements in section 128(a)(2), Virginia submitted the provisions of 9VAC5-170-210 on December 22, 2014. This regulation requires members of the SAPCB (or designated representatives) and the director of VADEQ (or a designated representative) to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Virginia's regulation includes the board and the director (or their respective designated representatives) because only the SAPCB and the director have the authority to approve permits or enforcement orders under the CAA in Virginia. The regulation also requires that such disclosures be made annually through the applicable forms set forth in section 2.2-3100 et seq. of the Code of Virginia. Additionally, the SIP revision adds the terms “Disclosure form” and “Potential conflict of interest” to 9VAC5-170-20. “Disclosure form” is defined as the financial statement required by section 2.2-3114 of the Code of Virginia, which requires nonsalaried members of all policy and supervisory boards (including the SAPCB) and other persons occupying offices or positions of trust or employment in state government (including the director of VADEQ) to file the relevant disclosure form set forth in sections 2.2-3117 and 2.2-3118 in the Code of Virginia.

    “Potential conflict of interest” is also newly defined in 9VAC5-170-20 as a “personal interest” per section 2.2-3101 of the Code of Virginia, which defines “personal interest” as a financial benefit or liability accruing to an officer, employee, or an immediate family member which includes: (1) Three percent or more ownership in a business, (2) annual income exceeding $5,000 from ownership in a property or business, (3) salary, other compensation, fringe benefits, or benefits from using the property paid by a business or governmental agency that exceed $5,000 annually, (4) ownership of a property exceeding $5,000 in value, excluding ownership in a business, income, salary, other compensation, fringe benefits, or benefits from using the property, (5) personal liability incurred on behalf of a business exceeding three percent of the business's asset value, or (6) an option for ownership of a business or property if the ownership will consist of numbers (1) or (4) above.

    EPA finds that 9VAC5-170-210 and the revised definitions in 9VAC5-170-20 require members of Virginia's board and the head of Virginia's executive agency (both of which have powers to approve CAA permits or enforcement orders) to adequately disclose potential conflicts of interest. Thus, the December 22, 2014 SIP submittal addresses the requirements in section 128(a)(2).

    IV. Infrastructure Requirements and EPA's Analysis of Virginia's Submittals

    Whenever new or revised NAAQS are promulgated, the CAA requires states to submit a plan for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan is required to address basic program elements including, but not limited to, regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. These elements are referred to as infrastructure requirements. In particular, the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) require that each state's SIP meet the requirements of section 128.

    On the following dates, and for the applicable NAAQS, Virginia submitted infrastructure SIP submittals to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2): March 9, 2012 for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, July 23, 2012 for the 2008 O3 NAAQS, May 30, 2013 for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, and June 23, 2014 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    EPA has approved these submittals as meeting certain requirements or elements in section 110(a)(2) for the applicable NAAQS but has stated in each of these approvals that EPA would take later, separate action for requirements in section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).1 See 78 FR 58462 (September 24, 2013) (2008 Pb NAAQS), 79 FR 17043 (March 27, 2014) (2008 O3 NAAQS), 79 FR 15012 (March 18, 2014) (2010 NO2 NAAQS), and 80 FR 11557 (March 4, 2015) (2010 SO2 NAAQS). See EPA's proposed approvals of Virginia's infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 O3 NAAQS and the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS for a discussion of EPA's approach to reviewing infrastructure SIPs, including EPA's longstanding interpretation of the following: Requirements for section 110(a)(1) and (2); EPA's interpretation that the CAA allows states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements in section 110(a)(2) for a specific NAAQS; and the interpretation that EPA has the ability to act on separate elements of 110(a)(2) for a NAAQS in separate rulemaking actions. 78 FR 39671 (July 2, 2013) (2008 O3 NAAQS), 78 FR 47264 (August 5, 2013) (2010 NO2 NAAQS), and 79 FR 49731 (August 22, 2014) (2010 SO2 NAAQS).

    1 EPA has also taken separate action to approve the prevention of significant deterioration portions of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for the Virginia submittals for three of these NAAQS. See 79 FR 10377 (February 25, 2014) (2008 Pb NAAQS) and 79 FR 58682 (September 30, 2014) (2008 O3 NAAQS and 2010 NO2 NAAQS).

    With the December 22, 2014 SIP submittal from Virginia, EPA finds that the Virginia SIP adequately addresses all requirements in CAA section 128 and section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).2 Thus, EPA is now approving the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) infrastructure element for the Four Submittals for the 2008 Pb, 2008 O3, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    2 As noted previously, the Virginia SIP already includes a provision which addresses section 128(a)(1). See 76 FR 62635.

    V. Final Action

    EPA is approving Virginia's December 22, 2014 SIP revision that addresses the requirements of sections 128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA for all criteria pollutants of the NAAQS. EPA is also specifically approving the following Virginia submittals as addressing the requirements in section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA: The March 9, 2012 submittal for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, the July 23, 2012 submittal for the 2008 O3 NAAQS, the May 30, 2013 submittal for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, and the June 23, 2014 submittal for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on June 1, 2015 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by May 4, 2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    VI. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.

    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege Law, Va. Code § 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.” Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”

    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

    VII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of 9VAC5-170-210 and related definitions of 9VAC5-170-20 (both regarding disclosure of conflict of interests), with a state effective date of November 19, 2014. These regulations are discussed in section III of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 1, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking action. This action, approving regulations meeting section 128 and approving the infrastructure element E(ii) for four Virginia NAAQS submittals, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart VV—Virginia
    2. In § 52.2420: a. In the table in paragraph (c), revise the entry for “Section 5-170-20.” b. In the table in paragraph (c), add the heading “Part IX Conflict of Interest” and the entry for “Section 5-170-210” in numerical order. c. In the table in paragraph (e), revise the entries for “Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS,” “Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS,” “Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS,” and “Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS.”

    The revisions and addition reads as follows:

    § 52.2420 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Virginia Regulations and Statutes State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation [former SIP citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * 9 VAC 5, Chapter 170 Regulation for General Administration Part I Definitions *         *         *         *         *         *         * 5-170-20 Terms Defined 11/19/14 4/2/15 [InsertFederal
  • Registercitation]
  • Docket #2015-0040. Revised to add the terms disclosure form and potential conflict of interest.
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Part IX Conflict of Interest 5-170-210 General 11/19/14 4/2/15 [InsertFederal
  • Registercitation]
  • Docket #2015-0040. Does not include subsection B
    *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    (e) * * *

    Name of
  • non-regulatory
  • SIP revision
  • Applicable
  • geographic area
  • State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS Statewide 3/9/12 9/24/13, 78 FR 58462 Docket #2012-0451. This action addresses the following CAA elements or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (for enforcement and regulation of minor sources), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II) (for the visibility protection portion), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 3/9/12 2/25/14, 79 FR 10377 Docket #2011-0927. This action addresses the following CAA elements, or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) with respect to the PSD elements. 12/22/14 4/2/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] Docket #2015-0040. Addresses CAA element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS Statewide 5/30/13 3/18/14, 79 FR 15012 Docket #2013-0510. This action addresses the following CAA elements, or portions thereof: 110(a)(2) (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) with the exception of PSD elements. 5/30/13 9/30/14, 79 FR 58686 Docket #2013-0510. This action addresses the following CAA elements, or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) with respect to the PSD elements. 12/22/14 4/2/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] Docket #2015-0040. Addresses CAA element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Statewide 7/23/12 3/27/14, 79 FR 17043 Docket #2013-0211. This action addresses the following CAA elements, or portions thereof: 110(a)(2) (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) with the exception of PSD elements. 7/23/12 9/30/14, 79 FR 58686 Docket #2013-0211. This action addresses the following CAA elements, or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) with respect to the PSD elements. 12/22/14 4/2/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] Docket #2015-0040. Addresses CAA element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS Statewide 6/18/14 3/4/15, 80 FR 11557 Docket #2014-0522. This action addresses the following CAA elements, or portions thereof: 110(a)(2) (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)(PSD), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J)(consultation, notification, and PSD), (K), (L), and (M). 12/22/14 4/2/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] Docket #2015-0040. Addresses CAA element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
    [FR Doc. 2015-07372 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0149; FRL-9923-82] Difenoconazole; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of difenoconazole in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. Syngenta Crop Protection requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective April 2, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before June 1, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0149, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0149 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before June 1, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0149, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of September 5, 2014 (79 FR 53009) (FRL-9914-98), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 4F8231) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide, difenoconazole in or on pea, and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C at 0.2 parts per million (ppm); pea, vine at 10 ppm; pea, hay at 40 ppm; and bushberry, subgroup 13-07B at 3.0 ppm. The petition also requested that the existing tolerance for chickpea be removed. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta, the registrant, which is available in the docket identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0373, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.

    In the Federal Register of February 11, 2015 (80 FR 7559) (FRL-9921-94), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 3F8209) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by increasing existing tolerances for residues of the fungicide, difenoconazole in or on fruit, pome, group 11-10 from 1.0 to 3.0 ppm, and apple, wet pomace from 4.5 to 7.5 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified the levels at which some of the tolerances are being established. The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for difenoconazole including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with difenoconazole follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

    Subchronic and chronic studies with difenoconazole in mice and rats showed decreased body weights, decreased body weight gains and effects on the liver.

    In an acute neurotoxicity study in rats, reduced fore-limb grip strength was observed on 1-day in males and clinical signs of neurotoxicity were observed in females at the limit dose of 2,000 milligrams/kilograms (mg/kg). In a subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats, decreased hind limb strength was observed in males only at the mid- and high-doses. However, the effects observed in acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies are transient, and the dose-response is well characterized with identified no-observed-adverse effects-levels (NOAELs). No systemic toxicity was observed at the limit dose in the most recently submitted 28-day rat dermal toxicity study.

    There is no concern for increased qualitative and/or quantitative susceptibility after exposure to difenoconazole in developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, and a reproduction study in rats as fetal/offspring effects occurred in the presence of maternal toxicity. Although there is some evidence that difenoconazole affects antibody levels at doses that cause systemic toxicity, there are no indications in the available studies that organs associated with immune function, such as the thymus and spleen, are affected by difenoconazole.

    EPA is using the non-linear (reference dose) approach to assess cancer risk. Difenoconazole is not mutagenic, and no evidence of carcinogenicity was seen in rats. Evidence for carcinogenicity was seen in mice (liver tumors), but statistically significant carcinomas tumors were only induced at excessively-high doses. Adenomas (benign tumors) and liver necrosis only were seen at 300 parts per million (ppm) (46 and 58 mg/kg/day in males and females, respectively). Based on excessive toxicity observed at the two highest doses in the study, the presence of only benign tumors and necrosis at the mid-dose, the absence of tumors at the study's lower doses, and the absence of genotoxic effects, EPA has concluded that the chronic point of departure (POD) from the chronic mouse study will be protective of any cancer effects. The POD from this study is the NOAEL of 30 ppm (4.7 and 5.6 mg/kg/day in males and females, respectively) which was chosen based upon only those biological endpoints which were relevant to tumor development (i.e., hepatocellular hypertrophy, liver necrosis, fatty changes in the liver and bile stasis).

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by difenoconazole as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov on page 44 of the document titled “Difenoconazole: Human Health Risk Assessment for proposed new foliar uses on legume subgroup 6C and bushberry subgroup 13-07B; post-harvest uses on pome fruit group 11-10; and ornamental plants and vegetable transplants grown in both indoor and outdoor production facilities” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0149.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological POD and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for difenoconazole used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

    Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Difenoconazole for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment Exposure/scenario Point of departure and uncertainty/
  • safety factors
  • RfD, PAD, LOC for risk assessment Study and toxicological effects
    Acute dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 25 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Acute RfD = 0.25 mg/kg/day
  • aPAD = 0.25 mg/kg/day
  • Acute neurotoxicity study in rats
  • LOAEL= 200 mg/kg in males based on reduced fore-limb grip strength in males on day 1.
  • Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL= 0.96 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Chronic RfD = 0.01 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 0.01 mg/kg/day
  • Combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity rat; dietary
  • LOAEL = 24.1/32.8 mg/kg/day (M/F) based on cumulative decreases in body-weight gains.
  • Dermal Short-term (1-30 days) Oral NOAEL = 1.25 mg/kg/day dermal absorption rate = 6%
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • LOC for MOE = 100 Reproduction and fertility Study rat; dietary Parental/Offspring
  • LOAEL = 12.5 mg/kg/day based on decreased pup weight in males on day 21 and reduction in body-weight gain of F0 females prior to mating, gestation and lactation.
  • Inhalation short-term (1-30 days)
  • Inhalation and oral absorption assumed equivalent
  • Oral NOAEL = 1.25 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • LOC for MOE = 100 Reproduction and fertility Study rat; dietary Parental/Offspring
  • LOAEL = 12.5 mg/kg/day based on decreased pup weight in males on day 21 and reduction in body-weight gain of F0 females prior to mating, gestation and lactation.
  • Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation) The Agency is using a non-linear approach based on the chronic POD to assess the carcinogenic potential of difenoconazole. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to difenoconazole, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing difenoconazole tolerances in 40 CFR 180.475. EPA assessed dietary exposures from difenoconazole in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

    Such effects were identified for difenoconazole. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used 2003-2008 food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance level residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) information.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA used USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP) monitoring data, average field trial residues for some commodities, tolerance level residues for the remaining commodities, and average percent crop treated for some commodities.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing cancer risk to difenoconazole. Therefore, a separate quantitative cancer exposure assessment is unnecessary since the chronic dietary risk estimate will be protective of potential cancer risk.

    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.

    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:

    • Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain the pesticide residue.

    • Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group.

    • Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area.

    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.

    For the chronic dietary exposure analysis, the Agency estimated the PCT for existing uses as follows:

    Almond 5%, cabbage 2.5%, cucumbers 5%, garlic 5%, grape 5%, grapefruit 2.5%, onions 5%, orange 2.5%, pecan 2.5%, peach 1%, peppers 2.5%, pistachio 2.5%, pumpkin 2.5%, squash 5%, strawberry 2.5%, sugar beets 15%, tangerine 2.5%, tomatoes 25%, walnut 2.5%, watermelon 5%, and wheat 10%.

    In most cases, EPA uses available data from USDA/National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.

    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which difenoconazole may be applied in a particular area.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for difenoconazole in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of difenoconazole. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

    The drinking water assessment was performed using a total toxic residue (TTR) method which considers both parent difenoconazole and its major metabolite, CGA-205375, in surface and groundwater.

    Based on the surface water concentration calculator (SWCC) and screening concentration in ground water (SCI-GROW) and pesticide root zone model ground water (PRZM GW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of difenoconazole for acute exposures are estimated to be 20.0 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 1.77 ppb for ground water and for chronic exposure assessments are estimated to be 13.6 ppb for surface water and not detected for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 20.0 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 13.6 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

    Difenoconazole is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Treatment of ornamental plants in commercial and residential landscapes and interior plantscapes. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: For residential handlers, adult short-term dermal and inhalation exposure is expected from use on ornamentals (garden/trees). For residential post-application, short-term dermal exposure is expected for both adults and children from post-application activities in treated gardens.

    The scenarios used in the aggregate assessment were those that resulted in the highest exposures. The highest exposures consist of the following:

    • Short-term dermal exposure to adults from post-application activities in treated gardens, and

    • Short-term dermal exposure to children (6-11 years old) from post-application activities in treated gardens.

    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.

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

    Difenoconazole is a member of the triazole-containing class of pesticides. Although conazoles act similarly in plants (fungi) by inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not necessarily a relationship between their pesticidal activity and their mechanism of toxicity in mammals. Structural similarities do not constitute a common mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish that the chemicals operate by the same, or essentially the same, sequence of major biochemical events (EPA, 2002). In conazoles, however, a variable pattern of toxicological responses is found; some are hepatotoxic and hepatocarcinogenic in mice. Some induce thyroid tumors in rats. Some induce developmental, reproductive, and neurological effects in rodents. Furthermore, the conazoles produce a diverse range of biochemical events including altered cholesterol levels, stress responses, and altered DNA methylation. It is not clearly understood whether these biochemical events are directly connected to their toxicological outcomes. Thus, there is currently no evidence to indicate that conazoles share common mechanisms of toxicity and EPA is not following a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity for the conazoles. For information regarding EPA's procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism of toxicity, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

    Difenoconazole is a triazole-derived pesticide. This class of compounds can form the common metabolite 1,2,4-triazole and two triazole conjugates (triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic acid). To support existing tolerances and to establish new tolerances for triazole-derivative pesticides, including propiconazole, EPA conducted a human health risk assessment for exposure to 1,2,4-triazole, triazolylalanine, and triazolylacetic acid resulting from the use of all current and pending uses of any triazole-derived fungicide. The risk assessment is a highly conservative, screening-level evaluation in terms of hazards associated with common metabolites (e.g., use of a maximum combination of uncertainty factors) and potential dietary and non-dietary exposures (i.e., high end estimates of both dietary and non-dietary exposures). In addition, the Agency retained the additional 10X FQPA safety factor for the protection of infants and children. The assessment includes evaluations of risks for various subgroups, including those comprised of infants and children. The Agency's complete risk assessment is found in the propiconazole reregistration docket at http://www.regulations.gov, docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0497.

    The most recent update for the triazoles was conducted on October 24, 2013. The requested new uses of difenoconazole did not significantly change the dietary exposure estimates for free triazole or conjugated triazoles. Therefore, an updated dietary exposure analysis was not conducted. The October 24, 2013 update for triazoles may be found in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0149.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The available Agency guideline studies indicated no increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility of rats or rabbits to in utero and/or postnatal exposure to difenoconazole. In the prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, toxicity to the fetuses/offspring, when observed, occurred at equivalent or higher doses than in the maternal/parental animals.

    In a rat developmental toxicity study developmental effects were observed at doses higher than those which caused maternal toxicity. In the rabbit study, developmental effects (increases in post-implantation loss and resorptions and decreases in fetal body weight) were also seen at maternally toxic doses (decreased body weight gain and food consumption). In the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, toxicity to the fetuses/offspring, when observed, occurred at equivalent or higher doses than in the maternal/parental animals.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for difenoconazole is complete.

    ii. There are no clear signs of neurotoxicity following acute, subchronic or chronic dosing in multiple species in the difenoconazole database. The effects observed in acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies are transient, and the dose-response is well characterized with identified NOAELs. Based on the toxicity profile, and lack of concern for neurotoxicity, there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. There is no evidence that difenoconazole results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary risk assessment is conservative, using tolerance level residues and 100 PCT for the acute assessment while the chronic assessment used USDA PDP monitoring data, average field trial residues for some commodities, tolerance level residues for remaining commodities, and average PCT for some commodities. These assumptions will not underestimate dietary exposure to difenoconazole. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to difenoconazole in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by difenoconazole.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to difenoconazole will occupy 49% of the aPAD for all infants less than 1 year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to difenoconazole from food and water will utilize 88% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of difenoconazole is not expected.

    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    Difenoconazole is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to difenoconazole.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 170 for adults and 190 for children. Because EPA's level of concern for difenoconazole is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, difenoconazole is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for difenoconazole.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As discussed in Unit III.A, the chronic dietary risk assessment is protective of any potential cancer effects. Based on the results of that assessment, EPA concludes that difenoconazole is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to difenoconazole residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate enforcement method, GC/NPD method AG-575B, is available for the determination of residues of difenoconazole per se in/on plant commodities. An adequate enforcement method, liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method REM 147.07b, is available for the determination of residues of difenoconazole and CGA-205375 in livestock commodities. Adequate confirmatory methods are also available.

    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected]

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    The Codex has an established MRL for the sum of difenoconazole and its metabolite, 1-[2-chloro-4-(4-chlorophenoxy)-phenyl]-2-(1,2,4-triazol)-1-yl-ethano), expressed as difenoconazole in or on milk at 0.02 ppm, which is the same as the recommended U.S. tolerance.

    The Codex has not established an MRL for difenoconazole in or on pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C; bushberry subgroup 13-07B; pea, field, hay; pea, field, vines; or apple, wet pomace.

    The Codex has an established MRL for difenoconazole in or on pome fruit at 0.5 ppm for residues incurred from foliar uses of difenoconazole. This MRL differs from the recommended U.S. tolerance for difenoconazole in or on fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 5.0 ppm. The Codex MRL is not adequate to cover residues incurred from the proposed post-harvest uses in the United States; therefore, harmonization with Codex is not possible at this time.

    C. Response to Comments

    Several comments were received in response to the notice of filing, however, all were concerned with effects to bees and related to other petitions and chemicals contained in the same notice of filing, not difenoconazole.

    D. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    The tolerance being established for the bushberry subgroup 13-07B is 4.0 ppm, not 3.0 ppm as proposed. This is due to the independent field trial determination which resulted in the exclusion of one of the trials from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) tolerance calculation procedures. The tolerance being established for the pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C tolerance is being set at 0.20 ppm, not 0.2 ppm, and is based on the current practice of setting tolerances to 2 significant figures. The established tolerance in milk is being increased from 0.01 ppm to 0.02 ppm because of the new pea hay and vine feedstuffs which significantly increased the maximum reasonably balanced dietary estimate for dairy cattle. Furthermore, the Agency is establishing tolerances for the fruit, pome, group 11-10 and apple, wet pomace (5.0 ppm and 25 ppm, respectively) at higher levels than requested (3.0 ppm and 7.5 ppm, respectively). The established tolerances for fruit, pome, group 11-10 take into account maximum tolerance estimates that may result from post-harvest application techniques for pome fruit. The established tolerances for apple, wet pomace was calculated based on the highest average field trial residues in or on apples and the average processing factor for wet pomace. Lastly, some commodity terms were modified to be consistent with Agency's preferred food and feed commodity vocabulary.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of difenoconazole, in or on bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 4.0 ppm; pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C at 0.20 ppm; pea, field, hay at 40 ppm; and pea, field, vines at 10 ppm. Additionally, existing tolerances are modified as follows: Apple, wet pomace from 7.5 ppm to 25 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 from 3.0 to 5.0 ppm; and milk from 0.01 to 0.02 ppm. Lastly, the existing chickpea tolerance is removed as unnecessary since it is now covered by the pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C tolerance.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.475: i. Remove “Chickpea” from the table in paragraph (a)(1).

    ii. Add alphabetically the entries for “Bushberry subgroup 13-07B”, “Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C”, “Pea, field, hay”, and “Pea, field, vines” to the table in paragraph (a)(1).

    iii. Revise the entries for “Apple, wet pomace” and “Fruit, pome, group 11-10” in the table in paragraph (a)(1). iv. Revise the entry for “Milk” in the table in paragraph (a)(2).

    The amendments read as follows:

    § 180.475 Difenoconazole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * * (1) * * *

    Commodity Parts per million *    *    *    *    * Apple, wet pomace 25 *    *    *    *    * Bushberry subgroup 13-07B 4.0 *    *    *    *    * Fruit, pome, group 11-10 5.0 *    *    *    *    * Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C 0.20 Pea, field, hay 40 Pea, field, vines 10 *    *    *    *    *

    (2) * * *

    Commodity Parts per million *    *    *    *    * Milk 0.02 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2015-07354 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2014-0620; FRL-9924-66-OSWER] RIN 2050-AG76 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP); Amending the NCP for Public Notices for Specific Superfund Activities AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is adding language to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) to broaden the methods by which the EPA can notify the public about certain Superfund activities.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on May 4, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2014-0620. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Superfund Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2014-0620). This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the Superfund Docket is (202) 566-0276. The EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) is located at WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    General Information: Superfund, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), Risk Management Program (RMP) and Oil Information Center at (800) 424-9346 or TDD (800) 553-7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC metropolitan area, call (703) 412-9810 or TDD (703) 412-3323.

    Technical information: Suzanne Wells at (703) 603-8863, ([email protected]), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460-0002, Mail Code 5204P.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Why is EPA publishing this final rule?

    On October 1, 2014, EPA published a proposed rule entitled National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP); Amending the NCP for Public Notices for Specific Superfund Activities (79 FR 59179) (hereafter the proposed rule). The EPA proposed to amend the NCP to expand the methods by which the EPA can notify the public about certain Superfund activities.

    The NCP requires the lead Agency to publish a notice “in a major local newspaper of general circulation” when certain Superfund site-related activities occur. Many of these requirements were established in 1990 or earlier versions of the NCP when it was common practice for government agencies to publish notices of planned actions in newspapers. Today, multiple ways are used to notify the public about Superfund site-related activities that may be as or more effective than publishing notices in newspapers. For example, the public may be notified of certain actions the lead agency takes by distributing flyers door-to-door, mailing notices to homes, sending email notifications, making telephone calls or posting on Web sites. In certain cases, publishing a notice in a major newspaper of general circulation may not be the most effective way of notifying a community about a specific Superfund action, and may be less cost effective than other notification methods. EPA received seven comments on the proposed rule. EPA is addressing the comments and finalizing the amendment.

    II. Background A. What does this amendment do?

    In the October 1, 2014, proposed rule, six sections of the NCP were proposed to be amended to change the public notice language in the NCP to allow adequate notice to a community via a major local newspaper of general circulation or by using one or more other mechanisms. Specifically, this amendment will add language to:

    ○ § 300.415(n)(2)(i) That requires a notice of the availability of the administrative record file for CERCLA actions where, based on a site evaluation, the lead agency determines that a removal action is appropriate, and that less than six months exists before on-site removal action must begin.

    ○ § 300.415(n)(4)(ii) that requires notification of the engineering evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA) where the lead agency determines that a CERCLA removal action is appropriate and that a planning period of at least six months exists prior to initiation of the on-site removal activities.

    ○ § 300.425(e)(4)(ii) that requires notification of releases that may be deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL).

    ○ § 300.815(a) that requires notification of the availability of the administrative record file for the selection of a remedial action at the commencement of the remedial investigation.

    ○ § 300.820(a)(1) that requires notification of the availability of the administrative record file when an EE/CA is made available for public comment, if the lead agency determines that a removal action is appropriate and that a planning period of at least six months exists before on-site removal activities must be initiated.

    ○ § 300.820(b)(1) that requires notification of the availability of the administrative record file for all other removal actions not included in § 300.820(a).

    B. What comments did EPA receive and how are they addressed?

    EPA received seven comments on the proposed rule. Four of the commenters fully supported the proposed rule to add language to the NCP to broaden the methods by which the EPA can notify the public about certain Superfund activities. One commenter wrote “It is difficult even for organized groups to constantly scan the local newspaper for publication notices. To have our rights for participation denied because we do not have time to peruse the local newspaper each and every day seems contrary to EPA's mission to inform and protect the public.” Another commenter wrote “The currently required method of publishing notices in `major local newspapers of general circulation' is antiquated and frequently ineffective. By broadening the permitted methods of notification, linked when possible to Community Involvement Plans, EPA can better reach populations affected by the Superfund process.” A third commenter wrote “The proposed rule would broaden the notification methods the lead agency will be able to use in order to adopt a notification approach that is most effective at informing a community. . . . We fully support an expanded approach to notification that might include door to door flyers, mailing notices to homes, sending emails or making telephone calls.”

    One commenter questioned why the proposed rule did not extend additional methods of public notification to the activities included under:

    (1) section 117 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) including:

    ○ Section 117(a) notification of the proposed plan (40 CFR 300.430(f)(3)(i)(A)),

    ○ Section 117(b) notification of the final remedial action plan adopted (40 CFR 300.430(f)(6)(i)), and

    ○ Section 117(c) notification of an explanation of significant differences after adoption of a final remedial action plan (40 CFR 300.435(c)(2)(i)(B));

    (2) notice of availability of the amended Record of Decision (40 CFR 300.435(c)(2)(ii)(G));

    (3) notices after EPA receives a letter of intent to apply for Technical Assistance Grant (40 CFR 35.4110); and

    (4) notices of the starts and completions of five-year reviews or availability of draft or final five-year review reports.

    EPA is required to follow the statutory public notice requirements associated with CERCLA section 117. Publication in a major local newspaper of general circulation will continue to be required for 1) notice of availability of the proposed plan (40 CFR 300.430(f)(3)(i)(A)), 2) notice of availability of the Record of Decision (40 CFR 300.430(f)(6)(i)), 3) notice that briefly summarizes the explanation of significant differences (40 CFR 300.435(c)(2)(i)(B)), 4) notice of availability and a brief description of the proposed amendment to the Record of Decision (40 CFR 300.435(c)(2)(ii)(A)), and 5) notice of availability of the amended Record of Decision (40 CFR 300.435(c)(2)(ii)(G)).

    EPA did not propose revisions to 40 CFR 35.4110 that requires the Agency to publish a notice in a major local newspaper of general circulation when it receives a letter of intent to apply for a Technical Assistance Grant (TAG). EPA will consider whether revisions to 40 CFR 35.4110 are necessary to expand the methods by which it notifies the public of the receipt of a letter of intent to apply for a TAG. If EPA decides revisions are necessary, a proposed rule will be published.

    Finally, there are no regulatory requirements to publish a notice in a major local newspaper of general circulation about the start and completion of a five-year review or the availability of a draft or final five-year review report. The Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance (EPA 540-R-01-007, OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P, June 2001) says “[a]t a minimum, community involvement activities during the five-year review should include notifying the community that the five-year review will be conducted and notifying the community when the five-year review is completed.” The Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance goes on to say the site team should determine the best means for notifying the community about the five-year review. Therefore, no revisions are necessary regarding public notification of the start and completion of five-year reviews or availability of draft or final five-year review reports.

    One commenter suggested that while it need not be included in the new NCP language, EPA staff responsible for public notification should continuously evaluate the effectiveness of the public notice vehicles they use because “[i]n this world of new media the best way to reach people varies by group and is continuously changing.” The Agency agrees it is important to receive feedback from the community on a regular basis on the best ways to communicate with them. During the interviews conducted with community members as part of the development of a Community Involvement Plan, EPA staff receive feedback on the best methods to communicate with the public. EPA staff also take advantage of opportunities at public meetings and through informal ongoing discussions with community members about the ways they would like to receive information about site activities. Based on this feedback, the Agency adjusts its notification methods, if necessary.

    Two commenters wrote the Agency ought to provide public notifications in English and in other prominent languages spoken in a community. The Agency agrees with these commenters. In communities where languages other than English are spoken, the Agency does seek to translate site-related information into the languages spoken in the communities. When appropriate, the Agency can provide translators at public meetings to communicate site-related information to community members who do not speak English. Some Agency staff are bilingual and are able to help communicate site-related information in prominent languages spoken in a community.

    One commenter wrote that some communities are not knowledgeable about the Superfund process, and that it is important to provide training for community members in order to help them understand the Superfund process, and how they can be involved in the process. The Agency agrees with this commenter. EPA staff frequently provide presentations in communities about the Superfund process and how community members can be involved in the process. In addition, through programs like Technical Assistance Services for Communities (TASC), EPA works closely with communities to make sure they have the technical help they need. Sometimes, a community may need additional help to fully understand local environmental issues and participate in decision-making. The purpose of the TASC program is to meet this need.

    Finally, one commenter supported continuing to publish notices in major local newspapers because some communities continue to rely on local newspapers to get their information. This final rule allows the Agency to publish notices in “major local newspapers of general circulation,” if the local newspaper is determined to be the most effective vehicle for informing a community about certain Superfund activities.

    Thus, the amendment being promulgated is a useful and important change that will give the Agency the ability to determine the best method to notify the public about certain Superfund activities. EPA is promulgating the change to add language to 40 CFR part 300 as was proposed.

    III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    As explained previously, this rule takes final action on an amendment for which we received comments in response to our October 1, 2014, National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP); Amending the NCP for Public Notices for Specific Superfund Activities.

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to OMB review. This action merely adds language to 40 CFR 300.415(n)(2)(i), 300.415(n)(4)(ii), 300.425(e)(4)(ii), 300.815(a), 300.820(a)(1), and 300.820(b)(1) to expand the methods by which the lead agency can notify the public about certain Superfund activities. This action will enable the lead agency to identify effective methods to notify the public. This action does not impose any requirements on any entity, including small entities. Therefore, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), after considering the economic impacts of this action on small entities, EPA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action does not contain any unfunded mandates or significantly or uniquely affect small governments as described in Sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1999 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). This action does not create new binding legal requirements that substantially and directly affect Tribes under Executive Order 13175 (63 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action does not have significant Federalism implications under Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This action does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: March 19, 2015. Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

    For the reasons set out above, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

    PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN 1. The authority citation for part 300 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    2. Section 300.415 is amended by revising paragraphs (n)(2)(i) and (n)(4)(ii) to read as follows:
    § 300.415 Removal action.

    (n) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) Publish a notice of availability of the administrative record file established pursuant to § 300.820 in a major local newspaper of general circulation or use one or more other mechanisms to give adequate notice to a community within 60 days of initiation of on-site removal activity;

    (4) * * *

    (ii) Publish a notice of availability and brief description of the EE/CA in a major local newspaper of general circulation or use one or more other mechanisms to give adequate notice to a community pursuant to § 300.820;

    3. Section 300.425 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(4)(ii) to read as follows:
    § 300.425 Establishing remedial priorities.

    (e) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (ii) In a major local newspaper of general circulation at or near the release that is proposed for deletion, publish a notice of availability or use one or more other mechanisms to give adequate notice to a community of the intent to delete;

    4. Section 300.815 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 300.815 Administrative record file for a remedial action.

    (a) The administrative record file for the selection of a remedial action shall be made available for public inspection at the commencement of the remedial investigation phase. At such time, the lead agency shall publish in a major local newspaper of general circulation a notice or use one or more other mechanisms to give adequate notice to a community of the availability of the administrative record file.

    5. Section 300.820 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1) to read as follows:
    § 300.820 Administrative record file for a removal action.

    (a) * * *

    (1) The administrative record file shall be made available for public inspection when the engineering evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA) is made available for public comment. At such time, the lead agency shall publish in a major local newspaper of general circulation a notice or use one or more other mechanisms to give adequate notice to a community of the availability of the administrative record file.

    (b) * * *

    (1) Documents included in the administrative record file shall be made available for public inspection no later than 60 days after initiation of on-site removal activity. At such time, the lead agency shall publish in a major local newspaper of general circulation a notice or use one or more other mechanisms to give adequate notice to a community of the availability of the administrative record file.

    [FR Doc. 2015-07474 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 173 [Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0205; Notice No. 15-10] Clarification on Policy for Additional Name Requests Regarding Fireworks AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Clarification.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA), Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS), is revising its application-approval procedures for previously approved firework designs and clarifying requirements for assigning Explosives (EX) Approval or Fireworks Certification (FC) numbers. It is not required or necessary for a firework manufacturer, or designated agent, to submit a new EX Approval application each time an additional item name is associated with a firework design type (described under UN0336, UN0335, and UN0431). PHMSA will no longer process additional item name EX Approval applications, effective immediately.

    DATES:

    Effective April 2, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Ryan Paquet, Director, Approvals and Permits Division, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, (202) 366-4512, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On July 16, 2013, PHMSA published a final rule under docket HM-257 titled, “Hazardous Materials: Revision to Fireworks Regulations (RRR).” The intent of the final rule was to provide regulatory flexibility in seeking authorization for the transportation of Division 1.4G consumer fireworks (UN0336 Fireworks). The final rule created a new type of DOT-approved certification agency, the Firework Certification Agency (FCA), which serves as an optional alternate approvals agency for fireworks manufacturers or designated U.S. agents to submit approval applications. These approvals issued by FCAs use a “FC” numbering system different from PHMSA's “EX” system. As mentioned above, the intent of the final rule was to provide regulatory flexibility in the approval process for 1.4G consumer fireworks. PHMSA found that the level of effort required to process that high-volume of Approval applications was not commensurate with the safety benefits required by the APA Standard 87-1 or the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR, 49 CFR parts 171-180).

    PHMSA's Approvals and Permits Division evaluates and approves as many as 1,000 applications annually for devices that are chemically and physically identical. The only variant is the item or device's name. PHMSA identified an additional area where can streamline and expedite the approval process. Typically, firework manufacturers request a revised EX Approval application each time they add or change the name of a firework. PHMSA has historically accepted each EX Approval application for each approved firework, to include the original diagram and chemical compositions sheets. This process provides no additional safety benefit. As a result, PHMSA will no longer provide these approvals.

    By eliminating this redundant process, PHMSA will devote the saved time and resources toward other applications. As a result, we will reduce the wait-time for other Approval applications with more substantial safety benefits.

    II. Guidelines for Adding or Changing a Firework Product's Name

    In accordance with § 172.320, the EX-number, FC-number, product code or national stock number must be either marked on the package for each Class 1 material contained therein or on the shipping paper in association with the shipping description as described in § 172.202(a). Product codes and national stock numbers must be traceable to the specific EX-number assigned by the Associate Administrator or FC-number assigned by a DOT-approved FCA.

    For manufactures of consumer fireworks that wish to revise or update the product name, the HMR do not prohibit the change. In fact, the manufacturer may print, in any format desired, a new item name on any surface of the package. It is a common industry practice to print the EX or FC number on the fireworks device itself. We encourage industry to continue this practice as an additional means of identifying the product.

    III. Conclusion

    A change to the product name (not the proper shipping name) has no bearing on the safety of the firework, the original classification of the firework, or regulatory compliance. When applying for new fireworks applications, manufacturers may wish to simplify their procedures by using product codes or item numbers in accordance with Appendix D, Note 2 in the American Pyrotechnics Association, Standard 87-1 (December 1, 2001 Edition), [Incorporated By Reference (IBR), see 49 CFR 171.7(f)].

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 26, 2015. Ben Supko, Acting Deputy Associate Administrator Policy and Programs, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07425 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
    80 63 Thursday, April 2, 2015 Proposed Rules SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part 130 RIN 3245-AE05 Small Business Development Center Program Revisions AGENCY:

    U.S. Small Business Administration.

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is seeking comments on this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) regarding the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) Program (the Program). Specifically, the SBA is seeking comments on development of potential proposed amendments to current regulations governing the Program, which is authorized by the Small Business Act. This ANPRM is being issued to commence the consultative process with stakeholders to examine several issues such as International Trade counselor certification requirements, steps to selecting State/Region Directors, procedures for international travel, clarifying the use of carryover funds and procedures regarding the determination to affect suspension, termination or non-renewal of an SBDC's cooperative agreement to name a few. This ANPRM also addresses other policy and procedural changes necessary for the implementation of the Program.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3245-AE05 by one of the following methods (1) Federal Rulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov, following the instructions for submitting comments; or (2) Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: J. Chancy Lyford, Deputy Associate Administrator, SBDC Program, 409 Third Street SW., Room 6253, Washington, DC 20416. SBA will not accept comments submitted by email to this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

    SBA will post all comments to this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on www.regulations.gov. If you wish to submit confidential business information (CBI) as defined in the User Notice at www.regulations.gov, you must submit such information to the U.S. Small Business Administration, J. Chancy Lyford, Deputy Associate Administrator, SBDC Program, 409 Third Street SW., Room 6253, Washington, DC 20416, or send email to [email protected] Highlight the information that you consider to be CBI and explain why you believe SBA should hold this information as confidential. SBA will review your information and determine whether it will make the information public. Requests to redact or remove posted comments cannot be honored and the request to redact/remove posted comments will be posted as a new comment. See the www.regulations.gov help section for information on how to make changes to your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    J. Chancy Lyford, Deputy Associate Administrator for the SBDC Program, at 202-205-6766 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Statutory Authority

    The Small Business Development Center (SBDC) Program (the Program) was established as a pilot program in 1977 and was later officially authorized in 1980 by the Small Business Development Center Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-302) now codified in section 21(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 648. According to Section 21(a)(1) the purpose of the Program is to assist in establishing small business development centers explicitly to provide “management and technical assistance” to small businesses. Section 21(a)(3)(A) requires the SBA to consult with the recognized association of SBDCs in any rulemaking action for the Program. The issuance of this ANPRM is for purposes of undertaking the consultative process required by this section.

    B. Background

    The SBDC Program provides small businesses and aspiring entrepreneurs with a wide array of technical assistance to help support and strengthen business performance and sustainability as well as assist the U.S. economy by the creation of new business entities. Under the statute governing the SBDC Program, the Associate Administrator of Office of Small Business Development Centers (AA/OSBDC) holds responsibility for the general management and oversight of the SBDC Program by means of a cooperative agreement with the Recipient Organization.

    The SBDC rules were last revised in 1995, See 60 FR 31506 (June 13, 1995). However, statute authorizing the SBDC Program has been amended numerous times since the last rulemaking. The annual Program Announcement and Notice of Award have become SBA's primary means of adjusting SBDC program rules and policies in the wake of statutory and other changes. The SBA believes it is time for regulations outlining guidance for the policies and procedures for the SBDC Program. It is the intention of the SBA that by soliciting public comments through this Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), the SBDC Program policies and procedures will be updated to reflect current best practices, become more streamlined, and less onerous on the SBDC grantees and SBA. SBA would like comment on changes to any of its existing policies and procedures as well as any new ideas for how to best implement and operate the SBDC Program.

    Because of the amount of information contained within this ANPRM to address the necessary modifications, it is SBA's intention that the public, especially the recognized association and other stakeholders in the Program, be given ample opportunity to submit comments and help shape any possible future regulatory proposals.

    This ANPRM solicits public comments on, among other things, implementation of statutory amendments, current practices, guidance on new grantee applicants, and provisions regarding the collection and use of individual SBDC client data. Many of the statutory changes have been significant, including amendment to the types of entities that are eligible to apply to be an SBDC grantee.

    C. Definitions

    The SBA asks for comment on: Whether or not new definitions for defining Program requirements are needed, if there are other terms that are missing from the list below that need defining, and the draft definitions themselves.

    The SBA seeks comment on the possible addition of and content of the following new definitions:

    Associate Administrator/OSBDC. The individual who is statutorily mandated to manage the SBDC Program.

    Carryover funds. Unobligated federal funds reallocated from one funding period to the next for specified purposes through an amendment to the Notice of Award.

    District Office. The local SBA office that, among other responsibilities, is charged with SBDC grant oversight responsibilities by ensuring: compliance with the Notice of Award; the local small business market needs are met by the SBDC; the regularly scheduled reviews are completed as required; and by collaborating with the SBDC to perform joint events and trainings.

    State Director. An individual for whose time and effort is 100% allocated to overseeing and managing the SBDC grant and other grants that provide comparable management and technical assistance to the small businesses community in accordance with the cooperative agreement.

    Key personnel. SBDC State/Region Directors and SBDC Service Center Directors or managers and International Trade Center Directors.

    Matching Funds. Funds that will be supplied to meet the statutory match requirements of the SBA SBDC grant. Matching Funds may include cash and non-cash equivalents, provided those forms of matching comply with the percentage restrictions on non-cash contributions and source restrictions on both forms of funds.

    Notice of Award (NOA). Also known as the Cooperative Agreement, the legal agreement between SBA and a Recipient Organization containing the terms and conditions under which SBA provides federal funds for the performance of SBDC activities.

    Office of Small Business Development Centers (OSBDC). The main program office which manages the funding, budget, programmatic oversight, and the establishment and maintenance of all program policy over the national SBDC network.

    Program funds. Also referred to as Project funds and defined as all funds authorized under the Cooperative Agreement including, but not limited to, federal funds, cash match, non-cash match from indirect costs, in-kind contributions, program income revenues, and funds authorized or reported as carryover.

    Project Officer. The individual in the SBA District Office appointed by SBA as the primary local contact for the SBDC. This person conducts regular compliance oversight as required by OSBDC working in conjunction with the Program Manager as well as other responsibilities.

    Proposal. Also known as the Application, this is the written submission by a new Applicant Organization or an existing Recipient Organization describing its projected SBDC activities for the upcoming Budget Period and requesting federal funding for use in its operations.

    Prior Approval. The written concurrence from the appropriate SBA official for a proposed action or amendment to the SBDC Cooperative Agreement.

    Recognized Association. The association established by statute whose members are SBDCs for the purpose of representing the SBDC's interests.

    SBDC Service Center Director. The individual responsible for SBDC program implementation and management at a Service Center within an SBDC network.

    Specialized Services. SBDC services other than counseling or training, e.g., extensive research, hiring outside consultants for a particular client, translation services, etc.

    Sub-recipient Organization/Subcenters. An entity, identified in the Cooperative Agreement, having a written agreement with the Recipient Organization that (1) receives federal financial assistance; and/or (2) administers matching resources for purposes of conducting SBDC activities.

    D. General

    SBA also seeks comment on any other information that should be considered for possible future regulatory proposals, including whether the addition of a general description of the authority establishing SBDCs, the governing documentation (Program Announcement), and the administration of the Program (Notice of Award) should be included in a future rulemaking.

    E. Applications

    By statute, any Women's Business Center operating pursuant to section 29 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656) is now eligible to apply to be a new SBDC Recipient Organization. This ANPRM seeks comments on how to address statutory requirements for an SBDC Network to primarily utilize institutions of higher education and Women's Business Centers as new Service Centers.

    SBA invites comments on the following:

    Regarding the application procedures, how should SBA instruct all SBDC applicants to comply with the annual Program Announcement? Possible topics to comment on could include program integrity, allowable costs, conflicts of interests as well as format, conditions, submission requirements and due dates, for their new or renewal application to receive consideration.

    Regarding new applications, how should the SBA clarify which Applicants within the State or Region of service are eligible to be an SBDC Recipient Organization? SBA believes a clarification is advisable regarding its standard policy of recruiting and selecting New SBDC Recipient Organizations using a fair and open competitive process, including an objective review and on-site sufficiency review before the Associate Administrator (AA) of the OSBDC makes a final selection.

    Regarding renewal applications, what should SBA propose to describe the procedure when a Recipient is not renewed, either by SBA's or the Recipient's choice? Does any other aspect of renewal need to be considered for program regulatory proposals? Comments are requested as how best to update the process, including details on the negotiations with the District Office and how the Recipient Organization must submit the renewal application to the SBA.

    F. Operating Requirements

    This ANPRM requests comments on how to incorporate these statutory requirements in a future rulemaking.

    The SBA seeks comments on the following:

    Comments are requested on how each SBDC could comply with the requirement to maintain export and trade certified counselors on staff? Should there be a minimum number of export and trade certified counselors on staff? If so, what should be the minimum? Comments are requested on how the AA/OSBDC should set policy development and program administration, in consultation, to the extent practicable, with the Recognized Association.

    Comments are requested on how to clarify the specific identification of a “Small Business Development Center” and whether that name should be a part of the official name of every SBDC Lead Center and Service Center within the SBDC network? How should SBA consider other names, such as those grandfathered in or subsequently waived by the AA/OSBDC? SBA welcomes comments on any other information needed to be considered for program regulatory proposals at this time.

    Currently, there are SBDC Networks with other identifying characteristics, such as “Small Business Technology Development Centers.” How should an SBDC Network seeking the designation as a “Small Business Technology Development Center” operate in accordance with SBA policies and procedures? Should there be different rules for Small Business Technology Development Centers? If so, what should they be?

    Comments are requested on how the selection and retention of the SBDC State/Region Director should be accomplished. How should the policy guidelines already contained in the current Program Announcement and Notice of Award be incorporated? In particular, how should SBA mandate a Recipient Organization to have a State/Regional Director from another SBDC as a member of a selection panel? How much time should a State Director devote specifically to the SBDC grant? In addition, how much time should pass before any vacancy is reported to SBA? What percentage of their time and efforts should an Interim State/Region Director allocate to the SBDC program? What length of time should the appointment period for such Interim State/Region Director be? Should more time be needed for the Recipient Organization to hire a permanent State/Regional Director, how should it obtain prior approval from the AA/OSBDC?

    The responsibilities of SBDC State/Region Directors are currently set forth in policy in the Program Announcement and Notice of Award. What percentage of time should the Director dedicate to the SBDC? How much of the Director's time should be devoted to other projects which complement the SBDC mission? Can the position be held by a company or contractor or other choice? What should be the minimum direct reporting authority that a State Director should have? Should it be to that of a college dean in a university setting or the third level of management or administration within a State Agency or should some other level within the organization be considered? If so, what should that level be?

    Should SBA consider an amendment stating the names, addresses and phone numbers of small businesses or individuals receiving counseling assistance from an SBDC Network cannot be released to any person or entity outside of the SBDC without the consent of the client? Should a possible exemption be made if: SBA believes it necessary for grant oversight activities; SBA wants to conduct allowable client surveys or; the SBA Administrator is ordered to make such a disclosure by a court?

    How should a SBDC Lead Center or a Sub-recipient Organization enter into a contract or grant with a Federal department or agency to provide specific assistance to small business concerns? Prior to bidding on a non-SBA federal award or contract, how should potential conflict of interest situations be handled by the SBDC Lead Center or Service Center? What should the SBDC Lead Center or Service Center be required to obtain from the AA/OSBDC regarding the subject and general scope of the award or contract to ensure that there is no conflict of interest with the SBA? How should the notification procedure indicate to SBA how the additional award will not conflict with the Cooperative Agreement and identify how the additional funding will be tracked to ensure separate sources and uses of funds?

    G. Notice of Awards/Cooperative Agreements

    Section 21(k)(3)(A) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(k)(3)(A)) states that in extending or renewing a cooperative agreement of a Small Business Development Center, the Administration shall consider the results of the examinations and accreditation reviews. In addition, 15 U.S.C. 648(k)(3)(B) states the Administration cannot renew or extend any cooperative agreement with a small business development center unless the center has been approved under the accreditation program conducted pursuant to this subsection, except that the AA/OSBDC can waive such accreditation requirement, at his or her discretion, upon a showing that the center is making a good faith effort to obtain accreditation. SBA seeks comment on how best to incorporate these statutory changes into a proposed rulemaking.

    The SBA seeks comments on the following:

    What language should SBA propose regarding cooperative agreements and contracts, including the incorporation of a common set of performance measures for SBDC Networks established by the SBA? What should the District Office, in conjunction with OSBDC, negotiate with the Lead Center? Some ideas include annual goals, milestones, activities for the cooperative agreement, or other information needed to be considered for the program?

    For procurement/contracting policies and procedures, what should Recipient Organizations and Sub-Recipient Organizations have in the way of written procurement and contracting procedures in order to comply with the applicable federal procurement standards, the procurement procedures of the Recipient Organization, and openly compete their procurements? Are there any other issues regarding procurement/contracting that should be considered for program regulatory proposals at this time? While this and many other references are already established policy in the Program Announcement and Notice of Award, the SBA welcomes comments on new ideas, procedures and policies.

    In the event of a Disaster, the AA/OSBDC can amend one or more cooperative agreements to authorize unanticipated out-of-state travel by SBDC personnel responding to a need for services in a Presidentially-Declared Major Disaster Area. How should notification of this type of authorization be accomplished? Some possible ideas are either through the publication of an SBA procedural or policy notice or through a Lead Center individual approval approach? Are there other or issues related to any program travel information that should be considered for program regulatory proposals at this time? What compliance standards should proposed and actual travel costs incurred under an emergency authorization use? Should they comply with the established rule, Program Announcement and OMB guidelines?

    How should SBA clarify the conditions and procedures for effecting a suspension, termination or non-renewal of an SBDC's cooperative agreement? How should SBA set forth the administrative review procedures? Are there any other issues related to renewal needed to be considered for program regulatory proposals at this time? What should SBA consider in developing a new Administrative Procedure for Suspension, Termination and Non-Renewal? Should SBA include processes for taking action; notice requirements; relationship to government-wide suspension; and debarment? Also, what standards should SBA consider for administrative review of suspension, termination and non-renewal actions? Should SBA include details on a prescribed format; service; timeliness; standard of review; conduct of the proceeding; evidence; and decision? SBA seeks comments on the following.

    (1) Termination. How should SBA consider whether a recipient organization can incur further obligations under the Cooperative Agreement after the date of termination without express authorization to do so in the Notice of Termination? Are there other issues related to termination for program regulatory proposals? Should award funds be available for obligations incurred after the effective date of termination unless expressly authorized under the Notice of Termination or are there other ways to handle obligations incurred after termination? When a Cooperative Agreement has been terminated, how many days should the Recipient Organization have to submit final closeout documents to SBA? Can extenuating circumstances be considered and how should they be handled?

    (2) Non-Renewal. How can SBA elect not to renew a Cooperative Agreement with a Recipient Organization? In undertaking a non-renewal action, how should SBA either choose not to accept or consider any application for renewal from the Recipient Organization? Under what circumstances could the Agency choose not to exercise option years remaining under the Cooperative Agreement? When would a Cooperative Agreement not be renewed? Should the Recipient Organization continue to conduct project activities and incur allowable expenses until the end of the current budget period? If a Recipient Organization decides to not renew its grant, must it notify the District Director and send a letter of intent to withdraw to the AA/OSBDC no less than 180 days before the end of its performance period or would there be another time period that would be more acceptable?

    (3) Suspension. When should the suspension of a Recipient Organization begin? Should it begin on the date the Notice of Suspension is issued? How long should the period of suspension last? Should it last no longer than 6 months? At the end of the period of suspension, or any point during that period, how should the SBA either reinstate the cooperative agreement or commence an action for termination or non-renewal?

    Why should the SBA be obligated to reimburse any expenses incurred by a Recipient Organization while its cooperative agreement is under suspension? Where SBA decides to lift a suspension and reinstate a Recipient Organization's cooperative agreement, under what circumstances should the Agency consider reimbursing a Recipient Organization for some or all of the expenses it incurred in carrying out project objectives during the suspension period? Should SBA state that there is no guarantee that the Agency will accept expenses incurred in furtherance of project objectives during the period of suspension or is there some other way this should be handled?

    SBA seeks comment on whether, or not to add the following to the list of causes for suspension actions and if there are other causes not listed that should be considered:

    • Poor performance;

    • Unwillingness or inability to implement changes to improve performance;

    • Failure to implement recommendations from programmatic reviews and/or examinations within the time frame established by the AA/OSBDC;

    • Failure to implement recommendations from accreditation reviews within the time frame established by the accreditation committee and by the AA/OSBDC;

    • Failure to maintain adequate client service facilities or service hours;

    • Failure to maintain and enforce a conflict of interest policy;

    • Failure to provide records to the SBA or the SBA OIG on demand;

    • Failure to maintain records and;

    • Failure to maintain and enforce a procurement policy.

    How should SBA define the closeout procedures to be followed when an SBDC Lead or Service Center has left the program, either voluntarily or involuntarily to ensure that Program funds and property acquired or developed under the SBDC Cooperative Agreement are fully reconciled and transferred seamlessly between Recipient Organizations, sub-recipients, or other federal programs? How should the responsibility for conducting closeout procedures be vested with the Recipient Organization whose cooperative agreement is not being renewed? How should the procedures be documented and accomplished in accordance with the applicable property standards and the provisions of the SBDC Program regulations? Although stipulated in Subpart D of 2 CFR part 215, the SBA welcomes comments regarding this matter.

    H. Financial Requirements

    SBA seeks comments on the following:

    How can SBA clarify the policy for carryover requests? Should a Recipient Organization request that SBA reauthorize any remaining unexpended and unobligated federal funds from their cooperative agreement for use in the ensuing Program/Budget Year or is there other information that needs to be considered when considering how to obligate the unexpended program funds? Should carryover requests not submitted within the timeframe designated by the AA/OSBDC be considered or are there other issues that need to be considered in extending the timeframe? Should carryover requests adhere to the format stipulated in the Program Announcement for renewal applications and contain the appropriate budget and narrative information along with a justification for the carryover? How should the AA/OSBDC determine whether good cause exists for funds remaining unobligated? If planned obligations could not be carried out because of a bona fide reason, how should the AA/OSBDC determine program objectives would be better served by deferring obligation of the funds to the following year or is there other information that needs to be considered? Should repeated requests for Carryovers (for more than two consecutive years) require substantial justification, and without this justification should they not be approved or is there other information that needs to be considered?

    In addition, cash match should equal at least 50% of the SBA funds used by the SBDC. The remaining 50% of matching funds may be provided through allowable combinations of cash, in-kind contributions, or authorized indirect costs. Should costs or the values of third party in-kind contributions count towards satisfying a cost sharing or matching requirement of a grant agreement if they have been or will be counted towards satisfying a cost sharing or matching requirement of another Federal grant agreement, a Federal Procurement Contract, or any other award of Federal funds or is there other information that needs to be considered? Should in-Kind services performed during the current Budget Period not be carried over to a subsequent Budget Period even if they were not previously claimed as match or is there other information that needs to be considered?

    Should SBA require all foreign travel requests to be submitted to the appropriate District Director/Project Officer and to the OSBDC Program Manager for review and dispatch to the AA/OSBDC for final approval in accordance with the Program Announcement or is there other information that needs to be considered? Should foreign travel charged to the SBDC cooperative agreement or performed by SBDC staff while on duty for the Recipient Organization be approved in advance in accordance with the Program Announcement or is there other information that needs to be considered? Should planned foreign travel costs allocable to the SBDC cooperative agreement for SBDC Network staff be approved by the SBA through the annual proposal process and should such planned costs be fully disclosed and justified in the budget narrative for Agency review or is there other information that needs to be considered? Should unanticipated foreign travel be approved in advance in accordance with the Program Announcement or is there other information that needs to be considered?

    The SBA prohibits the use of Program Funds for purposes identified as unallowable following OMB guidance, including a Recipient Organization cannot use such funds to provide financial assistance, including subgrants, seed money for venture capital, or fund-raising activities and costs, including financial or capital campaigns, the solicitation of gifts and bequests, and similar activities intended to raise capital or obtain contributions. Should SBA identify further restrictions and prohibitions on expenditures that can be reimbursed from this grant or is there other information that needs to be considered?

    SBA also welcomes comments on any other issues that the agency should address in a proposed rulemaking related to the SBDC Programs.

    Maria Contreras-Sweet, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06854 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0040; FRL-9925-48-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; State Boards Requirements; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead and Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia for the purpose of meeting the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 128. This rulemaking action also proposes to approve an infrastructure element directly related to the regulations being added for several previously submitted infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS, and the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS. In the Final Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register, EPA is approving the Commonwealth's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing by May 4, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0040 by one of the following methods:

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

    B. Email: [email protected]

    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0040, Marilyn Powers, Acting Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Air Protection Division, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0040. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the Commonwealth's submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    Dated: March 13, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07371 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families 45 CFR Part 1355 Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System AGENCY:

    Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Intent to publish a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    On February 9, 2015, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) regulations to modify the requirements for title IV-E agencies to collect and report data to ACF on children in out-of-home care and who were adopted or in a legal guardianship with a title IV-E subsidized adoption or guardianship agreement. However, we did not propose that title IV-E agencies report data in AFCARS on American Indian and Alaskan Native children related to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). In this notice, we are announcing that we intend to publish a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM), which will propose that title IV-E agencies collect and report additional ICWA-related data elements in AFCARS. We will consider the public comments on that SNPRM (related to ICWA-related data elements) and the February 9, 2015 NPRM (related to all other data elements) and issue one final rule on AFCARS.

    DATES:

    Effective April 2, 2015, ACF announces its intent to issue a SNPRM.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Children's Bureau (CB) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on February 9, 2015 (80 FR 7132) (hereafter referred to as the 2015 NPRM) to modify the requirements for title IV-E agencies to collect and report data to ACF on children in out-of-home care and who were adopted or in a legal guardianship with a title IV-E subsidized adoption or guardianship agreement with the title IV-E agency. In that NPRM, we proposed to revise and update the AFCARS regulations at 45 CFR 1355.40 et seq. and the appendices to part 1355. However, we did not propose data elements that would provide information in AFCARS on American Indian and Alaskan Native children related to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) (ICWA).

    We received comments to a previous NPRM and on a Federal Register Notice recommending data elements to address ICWA requirements. In the Tribal Consultation Statement section of the preamble to the 2015 NPRM, we acknowledged that we received comments asking for additional data elements that would address ICWA requirements and provide a comprehensive picture of the well-being of tribal children including: identifying whether a child is a member of an Indian tribe and the name of the Indian tribe, tribal notification, whether a tribal title IV-E agency intervened in a state title IV-E agency case, cultural activities that the child is participating in while away from his or her parents, judicial findings of active efforts, and preferential treatment for tribal placement resources. However, we did not propose in the 2015 NPRM to collect information related to ICWA because the enabling statute for AFCARS (section 479 of the Social Security Act (the Act)) had been interpreted as limiting data collection to information related to the title IV-B and IV-E program requirements.

    Upon further consideration following the publication of the 2015 NPRM, we have determined that there is authority under the statute (section 479(c) of the Act) to collect ICWA-related data in AFCARS. Specifically, the statute permits broader data collection in order to assess the current state of adoption and foster care programs in general, as well as to develop future national policies concerning those programs. However, the statute includes limits on this broad interpretation of section 479 of the Act that we must take into consideration when contemplating collecting data related to ICWA in AFCARS, including: data collected under AFCARS must avoid an unnecessary diversion of resources from child welfare agencies (see section 479(c)(1) of the Act) and must assure the reliability and consistency of the data (see section 479(c)(2) of the Act).

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Mark H. Greenberg, Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07574 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    80 63 Thursday, April 2, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of Advocacy and Outreach Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers; Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY:

    Office of Advocacy and Outreach, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Public Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA, 5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting via teleconference on April 17, 2015. A listen-only conference call line will be available from 3:00 p.m. through 4:00 p.m. EST for all who wish to listen in on the proceeding through the following telephone number: 800-369-1617 and enter passcode 5274714.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mrs. Kenya Nicholas, Designated Federal Official, USDA OAO, 1400 Independence Avenue, Room 520-A, Washington, DC 20250-0170; Telephone (202) 720-6350; Fax (202) 720-7704; Email: [email protected]

    ADDRESSES:

    Mrs. Kenya Nicholas, Designated Federal Official, USDA OAO, 1400 Independence Avenue, Room 520-A, Washington, DC 20250-0170. Comments may also be faxed to (202) 720-7704.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to FACA, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers will meet at 3:00 p.m. EST on Friday, April 17, 2015.

    The Committee advises the Secretary of Agriculture on matters broadly affecting new farmers and ranchers including strategies, policies, and programs that will enhance opportunities and create new farming and ranching operations. During this meeting, the Committee will consider Department goals and objectives necessary to deliberate upon their newly developed set of recommendations for consideration by the Secretary. There will be an executive session which will be closed to the public during the last portion of the meeting to discuss administrative matters.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 26th day of March 2015. Carolyn C. Parker, Director, Office of Advocacy and Outreach. Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers

    Friday, April 17, 2015, 3:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. EST.

    (Public) Listen-Only Call-In Number 1-800-369-1617 and enter passcode 5274714#.

    Agenda Call to Order & Committee Members Roll Call —3:00 p.m. • Kenya Nicholas, Designated Federal Officer (Welcome) Deliberations on Draft Set of Recommendations—3:05 p.m. • Gary Matteson, Chair and Peter Scheffert, Vice Chair • Advisory Committee Members Executive Session—Administrative (Closed to the Public) —3:50 p.m. • Advisory Committee Members Meeting Adjourned—4:00 p.m. • Kenya Nicholas, Designated Federal Officer
    [FR Doc. 2015-07418 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request—SuperTracker Information Collection for Registration, Login, and Food Intake and Physical Activity Assessment Information AGENCY:

    Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP), 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 an extension, without change, of a currently approved collection. The SuperTracker is an on-line dietary and physical activity self-assessment tool. The information collected can only be accessed by the user and will not be available to the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP) or any other public agency for purposes of evaluation or identification.

    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: Shelley Maniscalco, Director, Office of Nutrition Marketing and Communication, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1034, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Shelley Maniscalco at 703-305-3300. 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 CNPP Customer Support at (888) 779-7264.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: SuperTracker Information Collection for Registration, Login and Food Intake and Physical Activity Assessment.

    OMB Number: 0584-0535.

    Expiration Date: September 30, 2015.

    Type of Request: Extension, without change, of a currently approved collection.

    Abstract: SuperTracker is an Internet based diet and physical activity self-assessment tool, which allows users to monitor their daily food intakes and physical activity information. Based on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the SuperTracker delivers nutrition education by allowing users to monitor their intake and explore ways to improve their food and physical activity choices. Motivational education messages are generated and tailored to the user's personal assessment results.

    Individuals can use the SuperTracker without registration. However, all users may voluntarily enter and save information by registering with a username and password. The historical and trend data entered allows users to identify areas for improvement and reference short- and long-term changes to diet and physical activity behaviors. SuperTracker includes optional functions that consumers may use at their discretion, including a journaling feature to capture information for a selected category. Consumers may also post system-generated congratulatory and tip messages to Facebook or Twitter using their personal social media account. Through leveraging the user's existing social network, the user is more likely to experience positive feedback and encouragement in achieving their dietary and/or physical activity goals. Social media functionality is provided as a consumer benefit but does not impact consumer results or reports. Access to the SuperTracker is obtained at SuperTracker.usda.gov.

    Affected Public: Individual/Households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: The following total annual burden estimates are based on the data obtained from current web trend tool, Google Analytics from January 2014-December 2014.

    • The number of annual visitors to the Web site is expected to be about 11.2 million, and they will spend approximately 5 minutes one time only.

    • Approximately 30 percent of annual visitors will complete a one-time registration, log-in and assessment for the revised online assessment tool. This information is based on data from Google Analytics (rounded up = 3.3 million).

    • The average number of weekly visitors is approximately 200,000.

    • 30 percent of the weekly visitors return each week to complete tracking activities (approximately 60,000).

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 4.5.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 11,200,000.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.236448065.

    For the SuperTracker, it will take individuals approximately 1 minute (.0167) to initially register for a system logon ID and password. It typically takes users 30 seconds (.0083) to routinely login to the system and approximately 15 minutes (.25) to complete food and physical activity data entry log for 1 day. Repeat users will enter data on average 3 times per week. The amount of time spent completing entry and using functionality is estimated at 45 minutes per week.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 3,787,898 hours.

    SuperTracker Burden Estimates Affected public Description of
  • activity
  • (b) Form No. (c) Number annual
  • respondents
  • (d) Annual
  • frequency of
  • responses per respondent
  • (e) Estimated total annual
  • responses
  • (c×d)
  • (f) Hours per
  • response
  • (g) Total
  • annual burden
  • (e×f)
  • Reporting Burden Individual and households Annual Website Visitors 11,200,000 1 11,200,000 0.05 560,000 One time SuperTracker registration N/A 3,300,000 1 3,300,000 0.0167 55,110 One time SuperTracker Log-in N/A 3,300,000 1 3,300,000 0.0083 27,390 Food/Physical Activity Data Entry for 1 Week N/A 3,300,000 1 3,300,000 0.25 825,000 Repeat Log-ins for 1 Year N/A 60,000 51 3,060,000.00 0.0083 25,398 Repeat Food/Physical Activity Data Entries for 1 Year N/A 60,000 51 3,060,000.00 0.75 2,295,000 Total Annual Burden Est. 3,600,000 4.45 16,020,000 0.236448065 3,787,898
    Dated: March 25, 2015. Angela M. Tagtow, Executive Director, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07592 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 3410-30-P
    ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Master Development Plan for the Armed Forces Retirement Home in Washington, DC AGENCY:

    Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), AFRH plans to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the proposed AFRH Master Development Plan in Washington, DC. The SEIS will provide new analysis based on changes to the original master development plan, and changes in governing regulations.

    DATES:

    Effective: April 3, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Justin Seffens, Corporate Facilities Director, AFRH, at (202) 541-7549, or Tim Sheckler, Project Manager, GSA, at (202) 401-5806. The U.S. General Services Administrator (GSA) is preparing the SEIS on behalf of AFRH.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 4321-4347; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, chapter V, parts 1500-1508); and AFRH's Environmental Policy, 38 CFR part 200, AFRH plans to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the proposed Master Plan Development at the Armed Forces Retirement Home in Washington, DC.

    AFRH intends to prepare an SEIS to analyze the potential impacts resulting from the proposed changes to the original master development plan. Factors known to have changed since the previous study include construction of a new building, the Scott Building, on the AFRH campus; a $15 million restoration and expansion of the Lincoln's Cottage historic site; closure of the Heating Plant and inclusion of the Plant in the development area; the anticipated development of the McMillan Reservoir parcel immediately south of AFRH; and other area development.

    Background

    Established in 1851, the AFRH in Washington, DC continues its mission as a retirement community for military veterans. The 276-acre site is currently developed with 93 structures including the U.S. Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Landmark District.

    In 2002, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Pub. L. 107-107, 24 U.S.C. 411, et seq.) gave the AFRH, with approval of the Secretary of Defense, authority to dispose of any property by sale, lease, or otherwise that is excess to the needs of the AFRH. In 2010, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Pub. L. 111-84, 24 U.S.C. 411) modified this authority to allow the Secretary of Defense (acting on behalf of AFRH) to lease non-excess property upon such terms as the Secretary considers will promote the purpose and financial stability of the Retirement Home or be in the public interest. Proceeds from such a lease are deposited to AFRH's Trust Fund. To implement these authorities, AFRH prepared a Master Development Plan and issued a Record of Decision in 2008 for its 276-acre campus in Washington, DC to guide the long-term use and development of the site. AFRH was unable to reach agreement with the initially selected developer. AFRH now anticipates releasing a new solicitation and selecting a new development partner.

    Alternatives Under Consideration

    AFRH will analyze the proposed action and no action alternatives for the proposed Master Development Plan. The proposed action alternative(s) will include development of a portion of the site for office, commercial, institutional, and residential uses. As part of the EIS, AFRH will study the impacts of each alternative on the human environment.

    Scoping Process

    In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(4), there will be no scoping conducted for this SEIS.

    Steven G. McManus, Chief Operating Officer, Armed Forces Retirement Home.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07621 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 3030-ZA-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security In the Matter of: Precision Image Corporation, 22424 76th Avenue Southeast, Woodinville, WA 98072 Order Denying Export Privileges

    On October 28, 2013, in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle, Precision Image Corporation, was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. § 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Precision Image Corporation willfully exported from the United States technical data designated on the United States Munitions List, International Traffic in Arms Regulations, namely, a PCB, Sensor Motherboard, H-1 Gyro, PESK-7571, which is covered by Category XII(f) of the United States Munitions List, without having obtained from the United States Department of State a license or written approval for the export of this technical data. Precision Image Corporation was sentenced to 3 years of probation, criminal fine of $300,000 and an assessment of $400.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the Export Administration Act (“EAA”), the EAR, or any order, license or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license, or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. § 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. § 783(b)), or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. § 2778).” 15 CFR. § 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. app. § 2410(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR. § 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. app. § 2410(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued in which the person had an interest in at the time of its conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2014). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2401-2420 (2000)) (“EAA”). Since August 21, 2001, the EAA has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR., 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 7, 2014 (79 FR 46959 (August 11, 2014)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. § 1701, et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)).

    BIS has received notice of Precision Image Corporation's conviction for violating the AECA, and have provided notice and an opportunity for Precision Image Corporation to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has received and reviewed a submission from Precision Image Corporation.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Precision Image Corporation's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Precision Image Corporation's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Precision Image Corporation had an interest at the time of its conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

    First, from the date of this Order until October 28, 2023, Precision Image Corporation, with a last known address of 22424 76th Avenue Southeast, Woodinville, WA 98072, and when acting for or on its behalf, its successors, assigns, directors, officers, employees, agents, or representatives, (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Precision Image Corporation by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Precision Image Corporation may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to the Precision Image Corporation. This Order shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until October 28, 2023.

    Issued this 26th day of March, 2015. Thomas Andrukonis, Acting Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07640 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-863] Honey From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) for the period December 1, 2013 through November 30, 2014.

    DATES:

    Effective April 2, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alexis Polovina, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3927.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On December 31, 2014, based on a timely request for review 1 by the American Honey Producers Association and Sioux Honey Association (collectively, “Petitioners”), the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC covering the period December 1, 2013 through November 30, 2014.2 The review covers three companies.3 On March 17, 2015, Petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review on all the three companies listed in the Initiation Notice. 4 No other party requested a review of these companies or any other exporters of subject merchandise.

    1See Letter from Petitioners, Honey from the People's Republic of China: Request for Thirteenth Administrative Review, dated December 31, 2014.

    2See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 6041, 6044 (February 4, 2015) (“Initiation Notice”).

    3 The three companies are: Dongtai Peak Honey Industry Co., Ltd.; Kunshan Xinlong Food Co., Ltd.; and Lee Hoong Kee Ltd.

    4See Letter from Petitioners, Thirteenth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from the PRC: Petitioners' Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review, dated March 17, 2015.

    Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, Petitioners timely withdrew their request by the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding, in its entirety, the administrative review of honey from the PRC for the period December 1, 2013 through November 30, 2014.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because the Department is rescinding this administrative review in its entirety, the entries to which this administrative review pertained shall be assessed antidumping duties at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, if appropriate.

    Notifications

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

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“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 or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: March 27, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07599 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Order Denying Export Privileges

    In the Matter of: Ivon Castaneda, Inmate Number—99682-004, FCI Coleman Medium Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 1032, Coleman, FL 33521,

    Washington, DC 20230

    On December 18, 2012, in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Ivon Castaneda (“Castaneda”), was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Castaneda conspired, knowingly and willfully attempted to export defense articles, that is AR-15/M-16 firearm barrels, receivers, components, parts, and accessories, from the United States to Honduras without having first obtained a license or written approval from the U.S. Department of State. Castaneda was sentenced 37 months of imprisonment, two years of supervised release and fined a $200 assessment.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the Export Administration Act (“EAA”), the EAR, or any order, license or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license, or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)), or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. app. § 2410(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. app. § 2410(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued in which the person had an interest in at the time of his conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2014). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2401-2420 (2000)) (“EAA”). Since August 21, 2001, the EAA has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 7, 2014 (79 FR 46959 (August 11, 2014)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)).

    BIS has received notice of Castaneda's conviction for violating the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Castaneda to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Castaneda.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Castaneda's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Castaneda's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Castaneda had an interest at the time of her conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until December 18, 2022, Ivon Castaneda, with a last known address of Inmate Number—99682-004, FCI Coleman Medium, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 1032, Coleman, FL 33521, and when acting for or on her behalf, her successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Castaneda by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Castaneda may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to the Castaneda. This Order shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until December 18, 2022.

    Issued this 26th day of March, 2015. Thomas Andrukonis, Acting Director, Office of Exporter Services .
    [FR Doc. 2015-07641 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-890] Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review, and Consideration of Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order in Part AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    Based on a request from Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc. (“Pier 1”), the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) is initiating a changed circumstances review to consider the possible revocation, in part, of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) with respect to jewelry armoires that have at least one front door.

    DATES:

    Effective April 2, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Howard Smith or Valerie Ellis, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5193 or (202) 482-4551, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On January 4, 2005, the Department published the Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005). On February 13, 2015, Pier 1, an importer of the subject merchandise, requested revocation, in part, of the AD order pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) and section 351.216(b) of the Department's regulations, with respect to certain jewelry armoires with at least one front door. The scope of the order currently excludes certain jewelry armoires with at least one side door but does not exclude jewelry armoires with at least one front door. Pier 1 proposes adding the phrase “or at least one front door” to the existing exclusion for jewelry armoires. On March 11, 2015, the American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioners”) stated that they agree with the scope exclusion language proposed by Pier 1.1

    1See March 11, 2015 letter from Petitioners Re: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From The People's Republic of China/Petitioners' Response to Pier 1 Imports' Letter of February 13, 2015 (“Petitioners agree with the proposed amendment.”).

    Scope of the Order

    The product covered by the order is wooden bedroom furniture. Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not exclusively, designed, manufactured, and offered for sale in coordinated groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the individual pieces are of approximately the same style and approximately the same material and/or finish. The subject merchandise is made substantially of wood products, including both solid wood and also engineered wood products made from wood particles, fibers, or other wooden materials such as plywood, strand board, particle board, and fiberboard, with or without wood veneers, wood overlays, or laminates, with or without non-wood components or trim such as metal, marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other resins, and whether or not assembled, completed, or finished.

    The subject merchandise includes the following items: (1) Wooden beds such as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds; (2) wooden headboards for beds (whether stand-alone or attached to side rails), wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds; (3) night tables, night stands, dressers, commodes, bureaus, mule chests, gentlemen's chests, bachelor's chests, lingerie chests, wardrobes, vanities, chessers, chifforobes, and wardrobe-type cabinets; (4) dressers with framed glass mirrors that are attached to, incorporated in, sit on, or hang over the dresser; (5) chests-on-chests,2 highboys,3 lowboys,4 chests of drawers,5 chests,6 door chests, 7 chiffoniers,8 hutches,9 and armoires;10 (6) desks, computer stands, filing cabinets, book cases, or writing tables that are attached to or incorporated in the subject merchandise; and (7) other bedroom furniture consistent with the above list.

    2 A chest-on-chest is typically a tall chest-of-drawers in two or more sections (or appearing to be in two or more sections), with one or two sections mounted (or appearing to be mounted) on a slightly larger chest; also known as a tallboy.

    3 A highboy is typically a tall chest of drawers usually composed of a base and a top section with drawers, and supported on four legs or a small chest (often 15 inches or more in height).

    4 A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers, not more than four feet high, normally set on short legs.

    5 A chest of drawers is typically a case containing drawers for storing clothing.

    6 A chest is typically a case piece taller than it is wide featuring a series of drawers and with or without one or more doors for storing clothing. The piece can either include drawers or be designed as a large box incorporating a lid.

    7 A door chest is typically a chest with hinged doors to store clothing, whether or not containing drawers. The piece may also include shelves for televisions and other entertainment electronics.

    8 A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest of drawers normally used for storing undergarments and lingerie, often with mirror(s) attached.

    9 A hutch is typically an open case of furniture with shelves that typically sits on another piece of furniture and provides storage for clothes.

    10 An armoire is typically a tall cabinet or wardrobe (typically 50 inches or taller), with doors, and with one or more drawers (either exterior below or above the doors or interior behind the doors), shelves, and/or garment rods or other apparatus for storing clothes. Bedroom armoires may also be used to hold television receivers and/or other audio-visual entertainment systems.

    The scope of the order excludes the following items: (1) Seats, chairs, benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds, stools, and other seating furniture; (2) mattresses, mattress supports (including box springs), infant cribs, water beds, and futon frames; (3) office furniture, such as desks, stand-up desks, computer cabinets, filing cabinets, credenzas, and bookcases; (4) dining room or kitchen furniture such as dining tables, chairs, servers, sideboards, buffets, corner cabinets, china cabinets, and china hutches; (5) other non-bedroom furniture, such as television cabinets, cocktail tables, end tables, occasional tables, wall systems, book cases, and entertainment systems; (6) bedroom furniture made primarily of wicker, cane, osier, bamboo or rattan; (7) side rails for beds made of metal if sold separately from the headboard and footboard; (8) bedroom furniture in which bentwood parts predominate; 11 (9) jewelry armories; 12 (10) cheval mirrors; 13 (11) certain metal parts; 14 (12) mirrors that do not attach to, incorporate in, sit on, or hang over a dresser if they are not designed and marketed to be sold in conjunction with a dresser as part of a dresser-mirror set; (13) upholstered beds; 15 and (14) toy boxes.16 Also excluded from the scope are certain enclosable wall bed units, also referred to as murphy beds, which are composed of the following three major sections: (1) A metal wall frame, which attaches to the wall and uses coils or pistons to support the metal mattress frame; (2) a metal frame, which has euro slats for supporting a mattress and two legs that pivot; and (3) wood panels, which attach to the metal wall frame and/or the metal mattress frame to form a cabinet to enclose the wall bed when not in use. Excluded enclosable wall bed units are imported in ready-to-assemble format with all parts necessary for assembly. Enclosable wall bed units do not include a mattress. Wood panels of enclosable wall bed units, when imported separately, remain subject to the order.

    11 As used herein, bentwood means solid wood made pliable. Bentwood is wood that is brought to a curved shape by bending it while made pliable with moist heat or other agency and then set by cooling or drying. See CBP's Headquarters Ruling Letter 043859, dated May 17, 1976.

    12 Any armoire, cabinet or other accent item for the purpose of storing jewelry, not to exceed 24 inches in width, 18 inches in depth, and 49 inches in height, including a minimum of 5 lined drawers lined with felt or felt-like material, at least one side door (whether or not the door is lined with felt or felt-like material), with necklace hangers, and a flip-top lid with inset mirror. See Issues and Decision Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita to Laurie Parkhill, Office Director, concerning “Jewelry Armoires and Cheval Mirrors in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China,” dated August 31, 2004. See also Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Final Changed Circumstances Review, and Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 71 FR 38621 (July 7, 2006).

    13 Cheval mirrors are any framed, tiltable mirror with a height in excess of 50 inches that is mounted on a floor-standing, hinged base. Additionally, the scope of the order excludes combination cheval mirror/jewelry cabinets. The excluded merchandise is an integrated piece consisting of a cheval mirror, i.e., a framed tiltable mirror with a height in excess of 50 inches, mounted on a floor-standing, hinged base, the cheval mirror serving as a door to a cabinet back that is integral to the structure of the mirror and which constitutes a jewelry cabinet line with fabric, having necklace and bracelet hooks, mountings for rings and shelves, with or without a working lock and key to secure the contents of the jewelry cabinet back to the cheval mirror, and no drawers anywhere on the integrated piece. The fully assembled piece must be at least 50 inches in height, 14.5 inches in width, and 3 inches in depth. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Final Changed Circumstances Review and Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 72 FR 948 (January 9, 2007).

    14 Metal furniture parts and unfinished furniture parts made of wood products (as defined above) that are not otherwise specifically named in this scope (i.e., wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds) and that do not possess the essential character of wooden bedroom furniture in an unassembled, incomplete, or unfinished form. Such parts are usually classified under HTSUS subheadings 9403.90.7005, 9403.90.7010, or 9403.90.7080.

    15 Upholstered beds that are completely upholstered, i.e., containing filling material and completely covered in sewn genuine leather, synthetic leather, or natural or synthetic decorative fabric. To be excluded, the entire bed (headboards, footboards, and side rails) must be upholstered except for bed feet, which may be of wood, metal, or any other material and which are no more than nine inches in height from the floor. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 72 FR 7013 (February 14, 2007).

    16 To be excluded the toy box must: (1) Be wider than it is tall; (2) have dimensions within 16 inches to 27 inches in height, 15 inches to 18 inches in depth, and 21 inches to 30 inches in width; (3) have a hinged lid that encompasses the entire top of the box; (4) not incorporate any doors or drawers; (5) have slow-closing safety hinges; (6) have air vents; (7) have no locking mechanism; and (8) comply with American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) standard F963-03. Toy boxes are boxes generally designed for the purpose of storing children's items such as toys, books, and playthings. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 74 FR 8506 (February 25, 2009). Further, as determined in the scope ruling memorandum “Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Scope Ruling on a White Toy Box,” dated July 6, 2009, the dimensional ranges used to identify the toy boxes that are excluded from the wooden bedroom furniture order apply to the box itself rather than the lid.

    Imports of subject merchandise are classified under subheadings 9403.50.9042 and 9403.50.9045 of the HTSUS as “wooden . . . beds” and under subheading 9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as “other . . . wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom.” In addition, wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds may also be entered under subheading 9403.50.9042 or 9403.50.9045 of the HTSUS as “parts of wood.” Subject merchandise may also be entered under subheadings 9403.50.9041, 9403.60.8081, 9403.20.0018, or 9403.90.8041. Further, framed glass mirrors may be entered under subheading 7009.92.1000 or 7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as “glass mirrors . . . framed.” The order covers all wooden bedroom furniture meeting the above description, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

    Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review, and Consideration of Revocation of the Order in Part

    Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act, the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of a request from an interested party 17 which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of an order.18 Based on the information provided by Pier 1, the Department has determined that there exist changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a changed circumstances review of the AD order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC.19

    17 Pier 1stated in its March 16, 2015 entry of appearance that it is an importer of the jewelry armoires that are currently subject to this order, and as such is an interested party pursuant to 19 CFR 351.102(a)(29)(ii).

    18See 19 CFR 351.216.

    19See section 751(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d).

    Section 782(h)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i) provide that the Department may revoke an order (in whole or in part) if it determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product have expressed a lack of interest in the order, in whole or in part. In addition, in the event the Department determines that expedited action is warranted, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) permits the Department to combine the notices of initiation and preliminary results. In its administrative practice, the Department has interpreted “substantially all” to mean producers accounting for at least 85 percent of the total U.S. production of the domestic like product covered by the order.20 Petitioners state that they agree with the exclusion request, however, because Petitioners did not indicate whether they account for substantially all of the domestic production of wooden bedroom furniture, we are providing interested parties with the opportunity to address the issue of domestic industry support with respect to this proposed partial revocation of the order, and we are not combining this notice of initiation with a preliminary determination pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii). As explained below, this notice of initiation will afford all interested parties an opportunity to address the proposed partial revocation.

    20See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, and Intent To Revoke Order in Part, 77 FR 42276 (July 18, 2012) (Pencils), unchanged in Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, and Determination To Revoke Order, in Part, 77 FR 53176 (August 31, 2012).

    Public Comment

    Interested parties are invited to provide comments and/or factual information regarding this changed circumstances review, including comments concerning industry support. Comments and factual information may be submitted to the Department no later than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal comments and rebuttal factual information may be filed with the Department no later than 10 days after the comments and/or factual information are filed.21 All submissions must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).22 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the due dates set forth in this notice.

    21See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).

    22See, generally, 19 CFR 351.303.

    The Department will issue the preliminary results of this changed circumstances review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3), which will set forth the factual and legal conclusions upon which the preliminary results are based, and a description of any action proposed because of those results. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results of the review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), the Department will issue the final results of its AD changed circumstance review within 270 days after the date on which the review is initiated.

    This initiation is published in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1).

    Dated: March 26, 2015. Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07601 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XB157 Marine Mammals; File No. 14856 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application for permit amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that Bruce R. Mate, Ph.D., Hatfield Marine Science Center, Oregon State University, Newport, OR 97365, has applied for an amendment to Scientific Research Permit No. 14856-02.

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before May 4, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the Features box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species home page, https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting File No. 14856 Mod 6 from the list of available applications.

    These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to [email protected] Please include the File No. in the subject line of the email comment.

    Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy Hapeman or Carrie Hubard, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject amendment to Permit No. 14856-02 is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

    Permit No. 14856-02, first issued on December 18, 2013 (79 FR 3346), authorizes Dr. Mate to take 66 species of cetaceans and 12 species of pinnipeds in U.S. and international waters worldwide for scientific research. The purposes of the research are to: (1) Identify migration routes; (2) identify specific feeding and breeding grounds for each species; (3) characterize local movements and dive habits in both feeding and breeding grounds, and during migration; (4) examine the relationships between movements/dive habits and prey distribution, time of day, geographic location, or physical and biological oceanographic conditions; (5) characterize whale vocalizations; (6) characterize sound pressure levels to which whales are exposed; and (7) gather photo-identification and behavioral information for species and situations where little information has been documented. Researchers are authorized to conduct aerial and vessel surveys to perform a suite of research activities including: Observations, biopsy sampling, implantable and suction-cup tagging, photo-identification, behavioral observation, passive acoustic recording, post-tag monitoring, and/or import, receive or export parts. The permit expires December 31, 2018. Dr. Mate is requesting the permit be amended to increase the number of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) that may be taken by Level B harassment during surveys from 1,000 to 2,000 animals annually to account for all approaches within 100 yards. No other changes to the permit or manner of research would occur.

    A draft supplemental environmental assessment (SEA) has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), to examine whether significant environmental impacts could result from issuance of the proposed scientific research permit. The draft SEA is available for review and comment simultaneous with the scientific research permit application.

    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

    Dated: March 27, 2015. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07493 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-838] Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

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

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 2, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth Eastwood or Dennis McClure, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3874 or (202) 482-5973, respectively.

    Background

    On November 3, 2014, the Department of Commerce (Department) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on seamless refined copper pipe and tube from Mexico covering the period November 1, 2013, through October 31, 2014.1 The Department received a timely request for an antidumping duty administrative review from the petitioners (i.e., Cerro Flow Products, LLC; Wieland Copper Products, LLC; Mueller Copper Tube Products, Inc.; and Mueller Copper Tube Company, Inc.) for the following companies: (1) GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. (Golden Dragon); (2) IUSA, S.A. de C.V. (IUSA); and (3) Nacional de Cobre, S.A. de C.V. (Nacobre). The Department also received timely requests for an antidumping duty administrative review from Golden Dragon, IUSA, and Nacobre. On December 23, 2013, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review with respect to these companies.2

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 79 FR 65176 (November 3, 2014).

    2See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 79 FR 76956 (December 23, 2014).

    On January 27, 2015, March 17, 2015, and March 19, 2015, IUSA, Golden Dragon, and Nacobre, respectively, withdrew their requests for an administrative review. On March 23, 2015, the petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review for IUSA and Nacobre. All of these submissions were timely, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

    Rescission, In Part

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, all requests were submitted within the 90-day period and, thus, are timely. Because these withdrawals of requests for an antidumping duty administrative review are timely, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to IUSA and Nacobre. However, we are continuing the administrative review with respect to Golden Dragon because the petitioners have requested a review of this company, and we did not receive a timely withdrawal of review request from the petitioners with respect to it.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.

    Notification to Importers

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

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

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

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: March 27, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07598 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Order Denying Export Privileges

    In the Matter of: Erik Antonio Perez-Bazan, Inmate Number—45654-379, FCI Bastrop, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 1010, Bastrop, Texas 78602, Washington, DC 20230

    On September 15, 2014, in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Erik Antonio Perez-Bazan (“Perez-Bazan”), was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Perez-Bazan intentionally and knowingly conspired to knowingly and willfully export, attempt to export, and cause to be exported from the United States to Mexico eight (8) M203 grenade launcher barrels, which were designated as defense articles on the United States Munitions List, without first obtaining the required license or written authorization from the State Department. Perez-Bazan was sentenced to 75 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised released, and fined a $100 assessment.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the Export Administration Act (“EAA”), the EAR, or any order, license or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license, or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)), or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. app. § 2410(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. app. § 2410(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued in which the person had an interest in at the time of his conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2014). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2401-2420 (2000)) (“EAA”). Since August 21, 2001, the EAA has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 7, 2014 (79 FR 46959 (August 11, 2014)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)).

    BIS has received notice of Perez-Bazan's conviction for violating the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Perez-Bazan to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Perez-Bazan.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Perez-Bazan's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Perez-Bazan's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Perez-Bazan had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until September 15, 2024, Erik Antonio Perez-Bazan, with a last known address of Inmate Number—45654-379, FCI Bastrop, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 1010, Bastrop, Texas 78602, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Perez-Bazan by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Perez-Bazan may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to the Perez-Bazan. This Order shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until September 15, 2024.

    Issued this 26th day of March, 2015. Thomas Andrukonis, Acting Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07642 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Order Denying Export Privileges

    In the Matter of: Ronald Alexander Dobek, a/k/a Alexander M. Rovegno, Inmate Number—28521-057, FCI Duluth, Federal Prison Camp, P.O. Box 1000, Duluth, MN 55814.

    On September 10, 2014, in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Ronald Alexander Dobek (“Dobek”), was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Dobek conspired and knowingly and willfully attempted to export, exported, and caused to be exported F-16 canopy seals, which were designated as defense articles on the United States Munitions List, from the United States to Venezuela without having first obtained from the Department of State a license for such export or written authorization for such export. Dobek was sentenced 84 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release and fined a $300 assessment.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the Export Administration Act (“EAA”), the EAR, or any order, license or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license, or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)), or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. app. § 2410(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. app. § 2410(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued in which the person had an interest in at the time of his conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2014). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2401-2420 (2000)) (“EAA”). Since August 21, 2001, the EAA has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 7, 2014 (79 FR 46959 (August 11, 2014)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)).

    BIS has received notice of Dobek's conviction for violating the AECA, and have provided notice and an opportunity for Dobek to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has received and reviewed a submission from Dobek.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Dobek's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Dobek's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Dobek had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until September 10, 2024, Ronald Alexander Dobek, a/k/a Alexander M. Rovegno, with a last known address of Inmate Number—28521-057, FCI Duluth, Federal Prison Camp, P. O. Box 1000, Duluth, MN 55814, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Dobek by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Dobek may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to the Dobek. This Order shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until September 10, 2024.

    Issued this 26th day of March, 2015. Thomas Andrukonis, Acting Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07643 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance AGENCY:

    Economic Development Administration, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice and opportunity for public comment.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq.), the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of these firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.

    List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance [3/24/2015 through 3/27/2015] Firm name Firm address Date accepted for
  • investigation
  • Product(s)
    Atlas Stamping and Manufacturing Corporation 729 North Mountain Road, Newington, CT 06111 3/24/2015 The firm manufactures precision metal stamped seals, gaskets, washers, and brackets. Drill Masters-Eldorado Tools, Inc 336 Boston Post Road, Milford, CT 06460 3/25/2015 The firm manufactures deep hole gun drilling tools, fixtures and accessories. West Michigan Spring and Wire Forming, Inc. d/b/a West Michigan Tube and Wire Forming 2724 Ninth Street, Muskegon, MI 49444 3/25/2015 The firm manufactures seating and framing components of bent tubular steel and wire formed assemblies. Graham Machine, Inc 1581 Pittsburgh Road, Franklin, PA 16323 3/25/2015 The firm manufactures mining and safety equipment such as bushings, shafts, bearing housings and beam anchor components. Slim Line Case Company 36 St. Paul Street, Suite 321, Rochester NY 14604 3/26/2015 The firm manufactures handcrafted leather ID cases and key cases and other personal leather goods. CMG Process, Inc. d/b/a APEX Engineered Products 2659 Lake Road, Clark, PA 16113 3/26/2015 The firm manufactures and designs process equipment such as shell and tube heat exchangers. Custom Powder Systems, LLC 2715 North Airport Commerce, Springfield, MO 65803 3/26/2015 The firm manufactures metal containment systems including bins systems, cleaning systems, and lift systems.

    Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.

    Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

    Dated: March 27, 2015. Michael S. DeVillo, Eligibility Examiner.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07570 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 3510-WH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Order Denying Export Privileges

    In the Matter of: Brian Keith Bishop, 93000 Pretoria Place, Dulles, VA 20189-9300.

    On May 7, 2013, in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Brian Keith Bishop (“Bishop”), was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Bishop knowingly and willfully attempted to export from the United States to Jordan approximately 7,496 rounds of 9mm and 7.62 x 39mm ammunition, which were designated as defense articles on the United States Munitions List, without first obtaining the required license or written authorization from the State Department. Bishop was sentenced to probation for a term of two years; six months home confinement; criminal fine of $25,000 and fined a $100 assessment.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the Export Administration Act (“EAA”), the EAR, or any order, license or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license, or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)), or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. app. § 2410(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. app. § 2410(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued in which the person had an interest in at the time of his conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2014). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2401-2420 (2000)) (“EAA”). Since August 21, 2001, the EAA has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 7, 2014 (79 FR 46959 (August 11, 2014)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)).

    BIS has received notice of Bishop's conviction for violating the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Bishop to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Bishop.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Bishop's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of five years from the date of Bishop's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Bishop had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until May 7, 2018, Brian Keith Bishop, with a last known address of 93000 Pretoria Place, Dulles, VA 20189-9300, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Bishop by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Bishop may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to the Bishop. This Order shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until May 7, 2018.

    Issued this 26th day of March, 2015. Thomas Andrukonis, Acting Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07638 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Order Renewing Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges; X-TREME Motors LLC, et al.

    In the Matter of: X-TREME Motors LLC, a/k/a XTREME Motors, 2496 South 1900 West, West Haven, Utah 84401; and XTREME Outdoor Store, a/k/a XTREME Outdoors, 2496 South 1900 West, West Haven, Utah 84401; and Tyson Preece, 3930 West Old Highway Road, Morgan, Utah 84050; and Corey Justin Preece, a/k/a Corey Preece, a/k/a Justin Preece, 1245 South Morgan Valley Drive, Morgan, Utah 84050; and Toby Green, 480 West 175 North, Morgan, Utah 84050.

    Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2014) (“EAR” or the “Regulations”),1 I hereby grant the request of the Office of Export Enforcement (“OEE”) to renew the September 30, 2014 Order Temporarily Denying the Export Privileges of X-TREME Motors LLC, also known as XTREME Motors; XTREME Outdoor Store, also known as XTREME Outdoors; Tyson Preece; Corey Justin Preece, also known as Corey Preece or Justin Preece; and Toby Green I find that renewal of the Temporary Denial Order (“TDO”) is necessary in the public interest to prevent an imminent violation of the EAR.

    1 The EAR are currently codified at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2014). The EAR issued under the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2401-2420 (2000)) (“EAA”). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 7, 2014 (79 FR 46959 (Aug. 11, 2014)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq.) (2006 & Supp. IV 2010).

    I. Procedural History and Background

    On September 30, 2014, I signed a TDO denying for 180 days the export privileges of X-TREME Motors LLC and XTREME Outdoor Store (collectively, “X-TREME”). Tyson Preece, Corey Justin Preece, and Toby Green were added to the TDO as related persons in accordance with Section 766.23 of the Regulations. The TDO was issued ex parte pursuant to Section 766.24(a), and went into effect upon issuance on September 30, 2014. Copies of the TDO were sent to each party named in the September 30, 2014 order in accordance with Sections 766.5 and 766.24(d) of the Regulations, and on October 7, 2014, the TDO was published in the Federal Register. 79 FR 60,445 (Oct. 7, 2014).

    In support of the original TDO, OEE presented evidence that X-TREME repeatedly exported items controlled for Crime Control reasons without the required licenses to various destinations, including Russia and China. In order to conceal the actual contents of the shipments the Respondents intentionally mislabeled the contents on U.S. Customs Declarations. Between September 1, 2014, and the issuance of the TDO on September 30, 2014, the United States Government detained approximately 20 shipments containing rifle scopes to destinations that required an export license.

    The current TDO dated September 30, 2014, will expire on March 28, 2015, unless renewed on or before that date. On March 5, 2015, OEE submitted a written request for renewal of the TDO as to each named party. Notice of the renewal request was provided in accordance with Sections 766.5 and 766.24(d) of the Regulations. No opposition to any aspect of the requested renewal has been received.2

    2 Neither Tyson Preece, Corey Justin Preece, nor Toby Green has at any time challenged his respective inclusion as a related person to X-TREME.

    II. TDO Renewal A. Legal Standard

    Pursuant to Section 766.24(b) of the Regulations, BIS may issue or renew an order temporarily denying a Respondent's export privileges upon a showing that the order is necessary in the public interest to prevent an “imminent violation” of the Regulations. 15 CFR 766.24(b)(1). “A violation may be `imminent' either in time or degree of likelihood.” 15 CFR 766.24(b)(3). BIS may show “either that a violation is about to occur, or that the general circumstances of the matter under investigation or case under criminal or administrative charges demonstrate a likelihood of future violations.” Id. As to the likelihood of future violations, BIS may show that “the violation under investigation or charges is significant, deliberate, covert and/or likely to occur again, rather than technical or negligent[.]” Id. A “lack of information establishing the precise time a violation may occur does not preclude a finding that a violation is imminent, so long as there is sufficient reason to believe the likelihood of a violation.” Id.

    B. Request for Renewal

    OEE's request for renewal is based upon the facts underlying the issuance of the TDO and the evidence developed over the course of this investigation, including the evidence summarized in Section I., supra. OEE's on-going investigation of X-TREME, in conjunction with the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Utah, included the execution of a search warrant at X-TREME's place of business on September 29, 2014. Based on evidence obtained via the search warrant and since reviewed, OEE has determined that X-TREME's unlawful export activities were more extensive than known at the time the TDO issued, including that X-TREME engaged in at least 44 unlicensed exports over a 30-day period prior to the issuance of the TDO. In addition to the unlicensed export of rifle scopes discussed above, OEE also identified unlicensed exports of stun guns and Oleoresin Capsicum spray, items also controlled for Crime Control reasons.

    Moreover, despite the execution of the search warrant and the issuance of the TDO the following day, X-TREME continued to engage in unlawful export activities. On October 21, 2014 and October 28, 2014, respectively, X-TREME exported or attempted to export items subject to the Regulations to Canada. While the October 28, 2014 shipment was stopped by the United States Postal Service, X-TREME was successful in exporting the October 21, 2014 shipment. Both of these transactions plainly violated the TDO, which prohibits X-TREME from engaging in any export-related activities involving items subject to the EAR.

    C. Findings

    I find that the evidence presented by OEE demonstrates that renewal of the TDO is necessary to avoid an imminent violation of the Regulations based upon X-TREME's deliberate and covert violations both pre- and post-issuance of the TDO. Accordingly, renewal of the TDO is needed to give notice to persons and companies in the United States and abroad that they should cease dealing with the Respondents in export and re-export transactions involving items subject to the EAR or other activities prohibited by the TDO. Doing so is consistent with the public interest to preclude future violations of the EAR.

    It is therefore ordered:

    First, that X-TREME MOTORS LLC, a/k/a XTREME MOTORS, 2496 South 1900 West, West Haven, Utah 84401; XTREME OUTDOOR STORE, a/k/a XTREME OUTDOORS, 2496 South 1900 West, West Haven, Utah 84401; TYSON PREECE, 3930 West Old Highway Road, Morgan, Utah 84050; COREY JUSTIN PREECE, a/k/a COREY PREECE, a/k/a JUSTIN PREECE, 1245 South Morgan Valley Drive, Morgan, Utah 84050; and TOBY GREEN, 480 West 175 North, Morgan, Utah 84050; and when acting for or on their behalf, any successors or assigns, agents, or employees (each a “Denied Person” and collectively the “Denied Persons”) may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), or in any other activity subject to the EAR including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR.

    Second, that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of a Denied Person any item subject to the EAR;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by a Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby a Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from a Denied Person of any item subject to the EAR that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the EAR with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, that, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in section 766.23 of the EAR, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to a Denied Person by affiliation, ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or related services may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order.

    In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(e) of the EAR, X-TREME Motors LLC and/or XTREME Outdoor Store may, at any time, appeal this Order by filing a full written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022. In accordance with the provisions of Sections 766.23(c)(2) and 766.24(e)(3) of the EAR, Tyson Preece, Corey Justin Preece and/or Toby Green may, at any time, appeal their inclusion as a related person by filing a full written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022.

    In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(d) of the EAR, BIS may seek renewal of this Order by filing a written request not later than 20 days before the expiration date. The Respondents may oppose such a request to renew this Order by filing a written submission with the Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, which must be received not later than seven days before the expiration date of the Order.

    A copy of this Order shall be served on the Respondents and shall be published in the Federal Register.

    This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect for 180 days.

    Dated: March 27, 2015. David W. Mills, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07569 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; NOAA Marine Debris Program Performance Progress Report 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 Tom Barry at (301) 713-4248 x161 or [email protected]aa.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for a new information collection.

    The NOAA Marine Debris Program (MDP) supports national and international efforts to research, prevent, and reduce the impacts of marine debris. The MDP is a centralized office within NOAA that coordinates and supports activities, both within the bureau and with other federal agencies, that address marine debris and its impacts. In addition to inter-agency coordination, the MDP uses partnerships with state and local agencies, tribes, non-governmental organizations, academia, and industry to investigate and solve the problems that stem from marine debris through research, prevention, and reduction activities, in order to protect and conserve our nation's marine environment and ensure navigation safety.

    The Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act (33 U.S.C. 1951 et seq.) as amended by the Marine Debris Act Amendments of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-213, Title VI, Sec. 603, 126 Stat. 1576, December 20, 2012) outlines three central program components for the MDP to undertake: (1) Mapping, identification, impact assessment, removal, and prevention; (2) reducing and preventing fishing gear loss; and (3) outreach to stakeholders and the general public. To address these components, the Marine Debris Act authorized the MDP to establish several competitive grant programs on marine debris research, prevention and removal that provide federal funding to non-federal applicants throughout the coastal United States and territories.

    The terms and conditions of the financial assistance awarded through these grant programs require regular progress reporting and communication of project accomplishments to MDP. Progress reports contain information related to, among other things, the overall short and long-term goals of the project, project methods and monitoring techniques, actual accomplishments (such as tons of debris removed from an ecosystem, numbers of volunteers participating in a cleanup project, etc.), status of approved activities, challenges or potential roadblocks to future progress, and lessons learned. This information collection enables MDP to monitor and evaluate the activities supported by federal funds to ensure accountability to the public and to ensure that funds are used consistent with the purpose for which they were appropriated. It also ensures that reported information is standardized in such a way that allows for it to be meaningfully synthesized across a diverse set of projects and project types. MDP uses the information collected in a variety of ways to communicate with federal and non-federal partners and stakeholders on individual project and general program accomplishments.

    The MDP operates within the Office of Response and Restoration as part of NOAA's National Ocean Service.

    II. Method of Collection

    Respondents to this collection may choose to submit electronically or in paper format.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-xxxx.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (new information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations, not-for-profit institutions, state, local or tribal government.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 70.

    Estimated Time per Response: 10 hours (semi-annually).

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,400.

    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 30, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07547 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 3510-JE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Africa Partnership Forum (APF) Day; Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    United States Africa Command (USAFRICOM), DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Headquarters, United States Africa Command (USAFRTCOM), plans to host an Africa Partnership Forum (APF) Day, June 8-12, 2015. For planning purposes, AFRICOM is gathering information on potential number or “head count” of business or commercial entities that may be interested in participating in the Africa Partnership Forum Day.

    DATES:

    June 8-12, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Stage Palladium Theater, Plieninger Str. 102 70567 Stuttgart, Germany.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Interested parties may send their intent to participate to the following email addresses: (1) AFRICOM Stuttgart ACJ95 Mailbox, [email protected]; (2) http://www.ncsi.com/africom/2015/index.php. Please include your company name, point of contact information, the number of potential attendees, and indicate whether U.S. or non-U.S. business entity. State in the subject line: “USAFRICOM Africa Partnership Forum (APF): June 8-12, 2015.”

    Please respond to this notice no later than close-of-business on April 10, 2015. The three-day, USAFRICOM APF 8-12 will be held in Stuttgart, Germany. Specific detail s of the event, including a detailed schedule will be published at a later date.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Monday, June 8, from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m., will focus on arrivals, registration, networking, and a `No-Host' social.

    Tuesday, June 9, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Wednesday, June 10, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., will consist of focused topic plenary presentations and facilitate discussions to obtain greater mutual situational understanding; develop new concepts, approaches, insights, and innovative solutions; and to capture opportunities for shared cooperative engagements.

    Thursday, June 11, from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m., will focus on vendors' expositions showcasing/demonstrating available products and capabilities and networking to foster greater relationships with commercial industry, NGOs, academia, corporate social foundations, international/private and other organizational entities.

    Friday, June 12 will focus on departure of attendees and compiling of comments and contributions of participants.

    Dated: March 30, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07575 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the East Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway Inlet and Jamaica Bay Reformulation Study AGENCY:

    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District (Corps) with (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as local sponsor) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations; Corps' principles and guidelines as defined in Engineering Regulations (ER) 1105-2-100, Planning Guidance Notebook, and ER 200-2-2, Procedures for Implementing NEPA; and other applicable Federal and State environmental laws for the proposed Atlantic Coast of New York, East Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway Inlet and Jamaica Bay Coastal Storm Risk Management Feasibility Study. The study is re-assessing the feasibility of coastal storm risk management alternatives to be implemented within the congressionally authorized project area. This overall study area includes the entire Rockaway peninsula as well as the back-bay communities surrounding Jamaica Bay. During Hurricane Sandy, both Rockaway and Jamaica Bay communities were severely affected with large areas subjected to erosion, storm surge, and wave damage along the Atlantic Ocean shoreline and flooding of communities within and surrounding Jamaica Bay. Along the Rockaways, the Atlantic Ocean surge and waves exceeded the island height, resulting in flow of water across the peninsula, and contributing to the flooding along the shoreline of the interior of Jamaica Bay. Hurricane Sandy illustrated the need to re-evaluate the entire peninsula and back-bay area as a system, when considering risk-management measures. Acknowledging the amount of analyses required to comprehensively reevaluate the study area considering the influence of the Atlantic Ocean shorefront conditions on the back-bay system, a single Hurricane Sandy General Reevaluation Report and EIS (GRR/EIS) will be prepared. The Corps will use a tiered process to facilitate project decision-making. The EIS will build upon the extensive Atlantic shoreline alternatives analysis and environmental and technical studies and outreach conducted to date. The proposed tiering approach will allow the study to focus on both broad overall Jamaica Bay-wide issues while simultaneously assessing site specific impacts, costs and mitigation measures for the shorefront and back-bay alternatives. The scope of analysis in the Tier 1 and Tier 2 will be appropriate to the level of detail necessary for those documents and will receive input from the public and reviewing agencies. The Tier 1 shoreline analysis will provide the basis for the alternatives to problems associated with erosion, storm surge, and wave damage along the Atlantic Ocean shoreline the relationship of the shoreline with the back-bay. The Tier 2 analysis will specifically address the flooding of communities within and surrounding Jamaica Bay.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments and suggestions concerning the scope of issues to be evaluated within the EIS to Robert Smith, Project Biologist/NEPA Coordinator, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, Planning Division, Environmental, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10279-0090; Phone: (917) 790-8729; email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions about the overall East Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway Inlet and Jamaica Bay Coastal Storm Risk Management Reformulation Study should be directed to Daniel T. Falt, Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, Programs and Project Management Division, Civil Works Programs Branch, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 2127, New York, NY 10279-0090; Phone: (917) 790-8614; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. Background

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in partnership with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), is undertaking this study. The original multiple purpose (coastal erosion control and coastal flooding protection) project for East Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway Inlet and Jamaica Bay, New York was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1965 (Pub. L. 89-298). The authorized project provided for the restoration of a protective beach along 6.2 miles of Rockaway Beach, between Beach 19th Street and Beach 149th Street. The beach erosion control features of the authorized project on the Rockaway Peninsula consists of a 100-foot berm width (i.e., beach) at an elevation of +10 foot NGVD (approximately 8.9 feet NAVD88) over the peninsula's entire project length.

    The 1965 authorized project also included measures to provide hurricane damage risk reduction within Jamaica Bay by constructing a hurricane barrier and closure structure across the entrance to Jamaica Bay (Rockaway Inlet). This original project authority was modified by Section 72 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 to provide for the separate construction of the beach erosion control on the ocean-front of the Rockaway Peninsula independently from the hurricane barrier addressing Jamaica Bay. For more than 30 years, the ocean-front portion of the authorized project has been maintained; the hurricane barrier portion of the originally authorized project was never constructed and was subsequently de-authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.

    In the early 2000s, the Corps began a reformulation effort to examine possible changes to the originally authorized East Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway Inlet and Jamaica Bay Project. The constructed shorefront features of the Atlantic Coastline (East Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway Inlet) were being reformulated with the goal of: Reducing coastal storm vulnerability to erosion, waves, and surge; identifying measures to reduce long-term re-nourishment costs; and extending federal participation in the project for up to 50 years. The reformulation effort was exclusively examining shorefront features as stand-alone alternatives for addressing shorefront damages. The Corps developed shorefront alternatives with the NYSDEC and the resource agency and public coordination of the shorefront alternatives was ongoing prior to Hurricane Sandy. The reformulation for the Jamaica Bay portion of the study area (i.e., the back-bay communities) had not been advanced prior to Hurricane Sandy due to funding constraints.

    In October 2012, Hurricane Sandy made landfall with a combination of massive storm surge, rising water levels and reshaping of local geography. In response to the damages and vulnerability of communities and ecosystems along the Atlantic Coast, the U.S. Congress passed the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113-2). In part, directing the Corps of Engineers to “. . . reduce future flood risk in ways that will support the long-term sustainability of the coastal ecosystem and communities and reduce the economic costs and risks associated with large-scale flood and storm events in areas along the Atlantic Coast within the boundaries of the North Atlantic Division of the Corps that were affected by Hurricane Sandy.” In partial fulfillment of the requirements detailed within the Act, the USACE identified authorized USACE projects for reducing flooding and storm risks that have been constructed or are under construction that could be re-evaluated under the new guidelines; the existing East Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway Inlet and Jamaica Bay, NY project met the criteria for re-evaluation.

    Because the reformulation for the Jamaica Bay portion of the study area had not been advanced prior to Hurricane Sandy, the Corps accelerated the reformulation effort for the back-bay portion of the study. The Corps is currently integrating the advanced plan formulation effort for the shorefront with the relatively recent planning effort for the back-bay into a single comprehensive document to address the entire system. Acknowledging the amount of analyses required to comprehensively reevaluate the study area considering the influence of the Atlantic Ocean shorefront conditions on the back-bay system, a single Hurricane Sandy General Reevaluation Report and EIS (GRR/EIS) will be prepared. The Corps will use a tiered process to facilitate project decision-making. The EIS will build upon the extensive Atlantic shoreline alternatives analysis and environmental and technical studies and outreach conducted to date. The proposed tiering approach will allow the study to focus on both broad overall Jamaica Bay-wide issues while simultaneously assessing site specific impacts, costs and mitigation measures for the shorefront and back-bay alternatives. The scope of analysis in the Tier 1 and Tier 2 will be appropriate to the level of detail necessary for those documents and will receive input from the public and reviewing agencies. The Tier 1 shoreline analysis will provide the basis for the alternatives to problems associated with erosion, storm surge, and wave damage along the Atlantic Ocean shoreline and the Tier 2 analysis will address the flooding of communities within and surrounding Jamaica Bay.

    2. Study Area

    The study area encompasses the Atlantic Coast of New York City between East Rockaway Inlet and Rockaway Inlet, and the water and lands within and surrounding Jamaica Bay, New York. The southern extent of the study area is the Atlantic Ocean and shorefront along the Rockaway Peninsula which separates the Atlantic Ocean from Jamaica Bay immediately to the north.

    3. USACE Decision Making

    Developing the alternatives formulation, engineering design and environmental consequences assessment into a single GRR/EIS allows the New York District to comprehensively evaluate the project as a system. However, the USACE acknowledges that the shorefront and back-bay segments may not concurrently be ready for a recommendation. The shorefront portion of the project has undergone extensive alternatives analysis, while the back-bay re-evaluation process is in its earlier stages. Additionally, the shorefront measures being evaluated have been the subject of considerable public and agency coordination while these essential coordination efforts have not been completed for the back-bay alternatives.

    As a result, the Corps will develop the HSGRR/EIS evaluating the entire area, but will tier the decisions (i.e., issue separate records of decision) on the respective areas. This decision making approach will allow time to address agency policy issues and build consensus among cooperating agencies and the public. This option to issue multiple records of decision based on a single EIS is available to the USACE because of the flexibility in the NEPA process as described in the President's Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) NEPA-Implementing Regulations.

    4. Public Participation

    The USACE invites public comment on the scope of the issues and alternatives to be addressed in the draft EIS. Input will be received through public meetings with both oral and written comments being provided; written comments may be submitted at any time during the process. The New York District will host a series of three public scoping meetings to receive comments on the proposed scope of issues to be evaluated in the draft environmental impact statement. Each of the public meetings will begin with an informal open house from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. followed by the formal meeting from 7:00-9:00 p.m.

    Two public meetings have been scheduled with a third TBD. The first will be held at the Knights of Columbus (333 Beach 90th Street, Rockaway Beach, NY 11693) on April 22, 2015 between 6:30-9:30 p.m. The second is scheduled at the Ryan Visitor Center (50 Aviator Road Brooklyn, NY 11234) for Wednesday, April 29 from 6:00-8:00 p.m.

    5. Lead and Cooperating Agencies

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the lead federal agency for the preparation of the environmental impact statement (EIS) and meeting the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the NEPA Implementing Regulations of the President's Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508). Within the study area, the National Park Service (NPS) manages the over 19,000-acre Jamaica Bay Unit of the Gateway National Recreation Area. Many of the actions evaluated within the EIS could occur within the National Recreation Area. Federal agencies interested in participating as a Cooperating Agency are requested to submit a letter of intent to Colonel Paul E. Owen, District Engineer (see ADDRESSES). The preparation of the EIS will be coordinated with New York State and New York City agencies with discretionary authority relative to the proposed actions. The Draft EIS is currently scheduled for distribution to the public November 2015.

    Dated: March 26, 2015. Peter M. Weppler, Chief, Environmental Analysis Branch, Planning Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07580 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary National Security Education Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Defense Language and National Security Education Office (DLNSEO), DoD.

    ACTION:

    Meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the National Security Education Board will take place. This meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    Tuesday, May 5, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    1101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1210, Arlington, VA 22209.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alison Patz, telephone: (571) 256-0771, [email protected], fax: (703) 692-2615.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is to review and make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense concerning requirements established by the David L. Boren National Security Education Act, Title VII of Public Law 102-183, as amended.

    Agenda:

    8:30 a.m.—Opening Remarks and Key Updates. 9:15 a.m.—Programmatic Updates. 10:00 a.m.—Class of 2015 Boren Scholars and Fellows. 10:45 a.m.—Break. 11:00 a.m.—Strategic National Security Hiring Needs. 11:30 a.m.—Read Out From NSEB Working Group on Communications. 12:15 p.m.—Working Lunch. 1:00 p.m.—Full Board Discussion on NSEP Strategic Communications and Branding. 2:30 p.m.—Break. 2:45 p.m.—New NSEP Initiatives. 3:15 p.m.—Board Discussion. 4:00 p.m.—Adjourn.

    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first-come basis.

    Committee's Point of Contact: Alison Patz, Alternate Designated Federal Official, (571) 256-0771, [email protected].

    Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140 and sections 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Department of Defense National Security Education Board about its mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of the planned meeting.

    All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Official for the National Security Education Board, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Designated Federal Official can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—http://www.facadatabase.gov/.

    Statements being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Official at the address listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least five calendar days prior to the meeting that is the subject of this notice. Written statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the National Security Education Board until its next meeting.

    The Designated Federal Official will review all timely submissions with the National Security Education Board and ensure they are provided to all members of the National Security Education Board before the meeting that is the subject of this notice.

    Dated: March 27, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07516 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Supplemental Record of Decision for Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) Sonar AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of supplemental decision and availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Navy (DoN) reaffirms its August 15, 2012, Record of Decision to employ up to four Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) sonar systems with certain geographical restrictions and mitigation monitoring designed to reduce potential adverse effects on the marine environment, including operating LFA sonar systems in the waters in which the Hawaiian Islands Stock Complex of common bottlenose dolphins could occur. The August 15, 2012, Record of Decision implemented the preferred alternative, Alternative 2, identified in the 2012 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS)/Supplemental Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (SOEIS) for SURTASS LFA sonar.

    Following litigation challenging the adequacy of the 2012 FSEIS/FSOEIS, the District Court for the Northern District of California determined that the DoN failed to use the best available data when it determined potential impacts from the employment of SURTASS LFA sonar systems on one stock of common bottlenose dolphins in Hawaiian waters rather than the more current information that shows five stocks of common bottlenose dolphins in Hawaiian waters. Accordingly, DoN prepared a narrowly-tailored FSEIS/SOEIS to remedy this deficiency. The National Marine Fisheries Service was a cooperating agency in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.6 for the development of the narrowly-tailored FSEIS/FSOEIS.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The full text of the Record of Decision (ROD) is available for public viewing and download at http://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com. Single copies of the ROD are available upon request from SURTASS LFA Sonar SEIS/SOEIS Program Manager, 4350 Fairfax Drive, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22203, or email: [email protected]

    Dated: March 26, 2015. P.A. Richelmi, Lieutenant, Office of the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy, Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07549 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Charter Amendment of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Amendment of Federal Advisory Committee.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that it is amending the charter for the Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Board of Actuaries (“the Board”).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This committee's charter is being amended pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1114(a)(1) and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(a), established the Board. The Board is a statutory Federal advisory committee that provides independent advice and recommendations related to the actuarial matters associated with the Department of Defense (DoD) Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund (“the Fund”) and other related matters. The Board, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1114(b) and (c), shall report to the Secretary of Defense annually on the actuarial status of the Fund and shall furnish its advice and opinion on matters referred to it by the Secretary of Defense.

    The Board shall review valuations of the Fund under 10 U.S.C. 1115(c) and shall report periodically, not less than once every four years, to the President and the Congress on the status of the Fund. The Board shall include in such reports recommendations for such changes as in the Board's judgment are necessary to protect the public interest and maintain the Fund on a sound actuarial basis.

    The Secretary of Defense, through the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)), may act upon the Board's advice and recommendations.

    The Board consists of three members appointed by the Secretary of Defense from among qualified professional actuaries who are members of the Society of Actuaries. Board members will serve for a term of 15 years, except that a Board member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the end of the term for which the predecessor was appointed shall serve only until the end of such term. A Board member may serve after the end of the term until a successor has taken the oath of office. The Board membership appointments are staggered so that a new member is appointed every five years. A Board member may be removed by the Secretary of Defense for misconduct or failure to perform functions vested in the Board and for no other reason. The Board's Chair will be designated by the USD(P&R) from among those Board members previously approved by the Secretary of Defense.

    Board members, who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees, will be appointed as experts or consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109 to serve as special government employee members and is entitled, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1114(a)(3), to receive pay at the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay of the highest rate of basic pay under the General Schedule of subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, for each day the member is engaged in the performance of duties vested in the Board. Board members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees shall be appointed pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.130(a) to serve as regular government employee members. All members are entitled to reimbursement for official Board-related travel and per diem.

    The DoD has determined that subcommittees will not be authorized for this Board. The Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) must be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee, designated in accordance with established DoD policies and procedures.

    The Board's DFO is required to attend at all meetings of the Board for the entire duration of each and every meeting. However, in the absence of the Board's DFO, a properly approved Alternate DFO, duly appointed to the Board according to established DoD policies and procedures, must attend the entire duration of all meetings of the Board.

    The DFO, or the Alternate DFO, calls all meetings of the Board; prepare and approve all meeting agendas; and adjourn any meeting when the DFO, or the Alternate DFO, determines adjournment to be in the public interest or required by governing regulations or DoD policies and procedures. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Board of Actuaries membership about the Board's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Board of Actuaries.

    All written statements shall be submitted to the DFO for the Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Board of Actuaries, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Board of Actuaries DFO can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—http://www.facadatabase.gov/.

    The DFO, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, will announce planned meetings of the Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Board of Actuaries. The DFO, at that time, may provide additional guidance on the submission of written statements that are in response to the stated agenda for the planned meeting in question.

    Dated: March 27, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07508 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal Nos. 15-06] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 15-06 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: March 27, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN02AP15.002 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 15-06 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Netherlands

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $.900 billion Other $.150 billion TOTAL $1.050 billion * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase: 17 CH-47F Cargo Helicopters with customer unique post-modifications, 46 T55-GA-714A Aircraft Turbine Engines with Hydro-Mechanical Assembly (34 installed and 12 spares), 41 Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation Systems (EGIs), 54 AN/ARC-231 Ultra High Frequency/Very High Frequency Radios, 21 AN/ARC-220 High Frequency Radios, 21 AN/APX-123A Identification Friend or Foe Transponders, and 41 AN/ARC-201D Very High Frequency Radios. Also included are spare and repair parts, support equipment, tools and test equipment, aircraft ferry and refueling support, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documentation, U.S. government and contractor technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Army (WGO)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Annex attached.

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: 19 Mar 15

    Policy Justification Netherlands—CH-47F-Aircraft

    The Government of Netherlands has requested a possible sale of 17 CH-47F Cargo Helicopters with customer unique post-modifications, 46 T55-GA-714A Aircraft Turbine Engines with Hydro-Mechanical Assembly (34 installed and 12 spares), 41 Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation Systems (EGIs), 54 AN/ARC-231 Ultra High Frequency/Very High Frequency Radios, 21 AN/ARC-220 High Frequency Radios, 21 AN/APX-123A Identification Friend or Foe Transponders, and 41 AN/ARC-201D Very High Frequency Radios. Also included are spare and repair parts, support equipment, tools and test equipment, aircraft ferry and refueling support, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documentation, U.S. government and contractor technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $1.05 billion.

    The Netherlands is one of the major political and economic powers in Europe and NATO and an ally of the United States in the pursuit of peace and stability. It is vital to U.S. national interests to assist the Netherlands to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability.

    The proposed sale of CH-47F aircraft will improve the Netherlands' capability to meet current and future requirements for troop movement, medical evacuation, aircraft recovery, parachute drop, search and rescue, disaster relief, fire-fighting, and heavy construction support. The Netherlands will use the enhanced capability to strengthen its homeland defense, deter regional threats, and provide direct support to coalition and security cooperation efforts. The CH-47F aircraft will supplement and eventually replace the Royal Netherlands Air Force's aging fleet of CH-47 helicopters. The Netherlands will have no difficulty absorbing this aircraft into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of these helicopters and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The principal contractor will be the Boeing Helicopter Company in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. government or contractor representatives to the Netherlands.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness or acquisition timelines as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 15-06 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The CH-47F is a heavy lift, newly manufactured aircraft. The CH-47F has the Common Avionics Architecture System (CAAS) cockpit, which provides aircraft system, flight, mission, and communication management systems to the flight crew. The CAAS consist of two dual-redundant MIL-STD-1553B data busses and an Ethernet LAN capable of supporting both IEEE 802.3 and ARINC 664. The CAAS includes five multifunction displays (MFDs), two general purpose processor units (GPPUs), two control display units (CDUs) and two data concentrator units (DCUs). The Navigation System will have two Embedded Global Positioning System (GPS)/Inertial Navigation System (INS) (EGIs), two Digital Advanced Flight Control System (DAFCS), one ARN-149 Automatic Direction Finder, one ARN-147 (VOR/ILS marker Beacon System), one ARN-153 Tactical Airborne Navigation System (TACAN), and two air data computers, one Radar Altimeter systems. The communications suite consists of two AN/ARC-231 Multi-mode radios providing Very High Frequency (VHF) FM, VHF-AM, Ultra High Frequency, Have Quick II and Data Management Satellite Communications, and two AN/ARC-201D Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Systems (SINCGARS) with associated Internet Download Manager. The APX-123 Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) will provide the additional functionality of dual IFF Mode 4/5. The AN/APX-123 Transponder will be classified Secret if Mode 4, or Mode 5 cryptographic key is loaded in the equipment.

    2. Identification and security classification of classified equipment, major components, subsystems, software, and technical data (performance, maintenance, operational (R&M, etc), documentation, training devices, and services are classified up to Secret.

    3. The Embedded GPS/INS (EGI) unit provides GPS and INS capabilities to the aircraft. The EGI will include Selective Availability anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) security modules to be used for secure GPS PPS.

    4. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware or software in this proposed sale, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    5. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

    6. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of the Netherlands.

    [FR Doc. 2015-07515 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD Sunshine Act Notice AGENCY:

    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Public Meeting and Hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, notice is hereby given of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (Board) public meeting and hearing described below. The Board invites any interested persons or groups to present any comments, technical information, or data concerning safety issues related to the matters to be considered.

    DATES:

    Session I: 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m., Session II: 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m., Session III: 5:30 p.m.-7:30 p.m., Session IV: 7:30 p.m.-9:00 p.m.; April 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Walter Gerrells Performing Arts and Exhibition Center, 4012 National Parks Highway, Carlsbad, New Mexico 88220.

    STATUS:

    Open. The Board has determined that an open meeting furthers the public interest underlying both the Government in the Sunshine Act and the Board's enabling legislation. The proceeding is being noticed as both a meeting under the Government in the Sunshine Act and a hearing under the Board's enabling legislation. At the conclusion of Session IV, the Board is expected to deliberate and then vote on a staff proposal. Deliberations and voting will proceed in accordance with the Board's operating procedures concerning the conduct of meetings.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    In Session I of this public meeting and hearing, the Board will receive testimony from a senior Department of Energy (DOE) official regarding actions taken by DOE to safely recover the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) underground from events following a salt haul truck fire on February 5, 2014, and a separate radiological release on February 14, 2014. Testimony is also expected to focus on the progress of implementation of corrective actions to resume safe waste operations. Directly following Session I, the Board's staff will present testimony to the Board concerning actions taken by the Board before and after the two accidents, and give an update of ongoing Board staff oversight activities. During Session II, the Board will receive testimony from a panel of senior managers from DOE Office of Environmental Management (EM), DOE Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO), and the site contractor—Nuclear Waste Partnership (NWP). The Board will first explore actions planned, and taken, by DOE to address the seven key elements in the WIPP recovery plan, and how compensatory measures implemented under safety management programs such as emergency preparedness and response will protect workers and the public during recovery activities. The Board will also consider the issue of how DOE will manage external pressure to resume waste operations without compromising the safety attributes of the plan's key elements. The Board will then examine DOE's safety basis strategy for WIPP recovery operations and upgrades, including the criteria for determining whether upgrades need to be planned and executed as major modifications. This will include actions being taken by DOE and the site contractor to ensure that hazards during the recovery phases are properly analyzed in Evaluations of the Safety of the Situation, and controls are properly identified and implemented. The final topic in Session II concerns DOE's strategy for providing adequate federal oversight during the recovery phase. In Session III, the Board will again receive testimony from a panel comprised of senior managers from DOE EM, CBFO, NWP, and the WIPP Accident Investigation Board Chairman. The Board will receive testimony on actions to correct deficiencies in key safety management programs such as emergency management, maintenance and engineering, fire protection, and nuclear safety. The Board will end Session III with a discussion of DOE's strategy for improving the effectiveness of federal oversight of contractor activities, including specific actions to ensure that improvements made by the site contractor and DOE are sustained over the long term. In Session IV, the Board will conclude the proceeding with testimony from its senior staff regarding an update to the public on the Board's proposed oversight actions associated with safe recovery of the underground, and oversight of corrective actions to resume and sustain safe waste operations. The Board is then expected to conduct deliberations concerning the staff's proposed oversight plan. The meeting will conclude with the Board's vote on the staff's recommendation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Welch, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (800) 788-4016. This is a toll-free number.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public participation in the hearing is invited. The Board is setting aside time at the end of Sessions II and III for presentations and comments from the public. The public will be given one final opportunity for comment before the Board begins deliberations in Session IV. Requests to speak may be submitted in writing or by telephone. The Board asks that commenters describe the nature and scope of their oral presentations. Those who contact the Board prior to close of business on April 24, 2015, will be scheduled to speak at the session of the hearing most relevant to their presentations. At the beginning of the hearing, the Board will post a schedule for speakers at the entrance to the hearing room. Anyone who wishes to comment or provide technical information or data may do so in writing, either in lieu of, or in addition to, making an oral presentation. The Board Members may question presenters to the extent deemed appropriate. Documents will be accepted at the hearing or may be sent to the Board's Washington, DC office. The Board will hold the record open until May 25, 2015, for the receipt of additional materials. The hearing will be presented live through Internet video streaming. A link to the presentation will be available on the Board's Web site (www.dnfsb.gov). A transcript of the hearing, along with a DVD video recording, will be made available by the Board for inspection and viewing by the public at the Board's Washington office and at DOE's public reading room at the DOE Federal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. The Board specifically reserves its right to further schedule and otherwise regulate the course of the meeting and hearing, to recess, reconvene, postpone, or adjourn the meeting and hearing, conduct further reviews, and otherwise exercise its power under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

    Dated: March 30, 2015. Jessie H. Roberson, Vice Chairman.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07648 Filed 3-31-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE CODE 3670-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No. ED-2015-ICCD-0038] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Application for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Program and Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) of 2009 Program AGENCY:

    Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 4, 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-0038 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 2E10, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, 3, please contact Wendy Lawrence, 202-219-7097.

    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: Application for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Program and Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) of 2009 Program.

    OMB Control Number: 1840-0113.

    Type of Review: A reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector, State, Local and Tribal Government.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 97.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 2,328.

    Abstract: The Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Program and the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) of 2009 are authorized by Title III, Part B and Part F. The purpose of these programs is to provide historically Black institutions with resources to establish or strengthen their physical plants, financial management, academic resources, and endowments.

    Dated: March 30, 2015. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07550 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 184-246] El Dorado Irrigation District; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Application for Temporary Variance of Minimum Flow Requirements.

    b. Project No.: 184-246.

    c. Date Filed: March 25, 2015.

    d. Applicant: El Dorado Irrigation District (licensee).

    e. Name of Project: El Dorado Project.

    f. Location: South Fork American River and its tributaries in Eldorado, Alpine, and Amador counties, California.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Brian Deason, Hydroelectric Compliance Analyst, (530) 642-4064, or [email protected].

    i. FERC Contact: John Aedo, (415) 369-3335, or [email protected].

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests, and recommendations is 15 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission (April 10, 2015). The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-184-246) on any comments, motions to intervene, protests, or recommendations filed.

    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests a temporary variance of the license-required minimum flow requirements at five locations in 2015 as a measure to respond to the current drought conditions in California. Specifically, the licensee requests Commission approval to:

    • Reduce minimum streamflows at South Fork American River below Kyburz (gage A-12) from the required 60 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 45 cfs from May 16-31, from the required 60 cfs to 18 cfs in June, from the required 40 cfs to 15 cfs in July, and from the required 18 cfs to 15 cfs in August ☐

    • Reduce minimum streamflows in Caples Creek below Caples Lake main dam (gage A-6) from the required 10 cfs to 5 cfs in April, from the required 14 cfs to 5 cfs from May 1-15, and from the required 14 cfs to 7 cfs from May 16-31 ☐

    • Reduce minimum streamflows in Echo Creek below Echo Lake dam (gage A-3) from the required 6 cfs or natural flow to 2 cfs or natural flow in April and May ☐

    • Reduce minimum streamflows in the Silver Fork American River below Silver Lake dam (gage A-8) from the required 4 cfs or natural flow to 2 cfs or natural flow in April and May☐

    • Reduce minimum streamflows in Pyramid Creek below Lake Aloha main dam (gage A-40) from the required 3 cfs to 2 cfs or natural flow in April, and from the required 5 cfs to 2 cfs or natural flow in May ☐

    The licensee states that implementing the proposed minimum flow variances would preserve reservoir storage for project purposes, including meeting consumptive water needs and ensuring adequate streamflow and reservoir storage at the project.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208- 3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the variance. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: March 26, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07538 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-670-000.

    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.403(d)(2): Fuel Tracker Filing Effective May 2015 to be effective 5/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5143.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-674-000.

    Applicants: Golden Triangle Storage, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Order No. 801 Compliance Filing to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5064.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-675-000.

    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: PAL Negotiated Rate Agreement—Koch Energy Services L.L.C. to be effective 3/26/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5181.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-676-000.

    Applicants: Enable Mississippi River Transmission, L.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rate Filing to Add Ameren 3668 Effective 4-1-15 to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5191.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-677-000.

    Applicants: North Baja Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Compliance to Order 801—Docket No. RM14-21-000 to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150325-5015.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-678-000.

    Applicants: Northern Border Pipeline Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Compliance to Order 801—Docket No. RM14-21-000 to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150325-5016.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-679-000.

    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Compliance to Order 801—Docket No. RM14-21-000 to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150325-5043.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-523-002.

    Applicants: Sabine Pipe Line LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 154.205(b): Sabine LUAF and Fuel Amendment 2 to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5053.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-670-001.

    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 154.205(b): Amendment to Fuel Tracker Filing Effective May 2015 to be effective 5/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150324-5078.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07532 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-89-000] Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, Llc; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Garden State Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Garden State Expansion Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) in Burlington and Mercer Counties, New Jersey. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on May 4, 2015.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    Transco provided landowners and residents within a 0.5 mile radius around the proposed compression upgrades with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

    Summary of the Proposed Project

    Transco proposes to construct and operate a new compressor station and a new meter and regulating station in Burlington County, New Jersey and construct and modify an existing compressor station and related appurtenant facilities in Mercer County, New Jersey. The Garden State Expansion Project would provide 180,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas to New Jersey Natural Gas Company. According to Transco, its project would provide system resiliency, service reliability, and operating flexibility for New Jersey Natural Gas Company's system.

    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.1

    1 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov using the link called “eLibrary” or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.

    Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 51.4 acres of land for the aboveground facilities. Following construction, Transco would maintain about 23.2 acres for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.

    The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us 2 to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.

    2 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:

    • Geology and soils;

    • land use;

    • water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;

    • cultural resources;

    • vegetation and wildlife;

    • air quality and noise;

    • endangered and threatened species; and

    • public safety.

    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning on page 4.

    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.3 Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

    3 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6.

    Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office, and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.4 We will define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office as the project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the Area of Potential Effects at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.

    4 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

    Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before May 4, 2015.

    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the project docket number (CP15-89-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected]

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” You must select the type of filing you are making. If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing”; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.

    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site.

    Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-89). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: March 26, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07536 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER15-1375-000 McCoy Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of McCoy Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is April 15, 2015.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 26, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07533 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-576-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: eTariff filing per 35.19a(b): 2166R3 Westar Energy, Inc. Refund Report to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 3/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150326-5048.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-579-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: eTariff filing per 35.19a(b): 2491R2 Westar Energy, Inc. Refund Report to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 3/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150326-5055.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1379-000.

    Applicants: TransAlta Energy Marketing (U.S.) Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Rate Schedule No. 2 to be effective 5/24/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150325-5267.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1380-000.

    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Communications Interface Migration Agreement (LaGrande-Pocatello) w/PacifiCorp to be effective 3/24/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150325-5285.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1381-000.

    Applicants: HOP Energy, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Cancellation of HOP Energy LLC MBR Tariff to be effective 3/31/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150326-5072.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1382-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-03-26_SA 2763 ATC-Escanaba FCA to be effective 3/27/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150326-5083.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1383-000.

    Applicants: NSTAR Electric Company.

    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 NSTAR-HQUS Transfer Agreement (CMEEC Use Rights) to be effective 5/26/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150326-5182.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1384-000.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Butler Solar LGIA Filing to be effective 3/16/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150326-5223.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1385-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Rate Schedule No. 198—Agreement for Interconnection, Amendment No. 1 to be effective 5/26/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150326-5231.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1386-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Service Agreement No. 343—Four Corners Circuit Breaker Replace with PacifiCorp to be effective 5/26/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150326-5235.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF15-569-000.

    Applicants: Biogas Power Systems—Mojave, LLC.

    Description: Form 556 of Biogas Power Systems—Mojave, LLC under QF15-569.

    Filed Date: 3/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150325-5303.

    Comments Due: None Applicable.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 26, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07530 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-668-000.

    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.

    Description: Penalty Revenue Crediting Report of Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC.

    Filed Date: 3/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150320-5268.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-669-000.

    Applicants: Ozark Gas Transmission, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: OGT March 2015 Cleanup Filing to be effective 4/24/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5109.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-671-000.

    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Annual Revenue Crediting Filing of Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5217.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-672-000.

    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Nicor's Amendment to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5251.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-673-000.

    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Update LPS and LPS Form of Service Agreements to be effective 4/23/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150323-5292.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15.

    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 24, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07531 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL15-53-000] California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice Setting Due Date for Interevention in Section 206 Proceeding

    On March 16, 2015, the Commission issued an order in Docket Nos. EL15-53-000, and ER15-861-000 pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation to determine the justness and reasonableness of the Energy Imbalance Market provisions in the California Independent System Operator Corporation's existing tariff related to the imbalance energy price spikes in PacifiCorp's balancing authority areas. California Independent System Operator Corporation, 150 FERC ¶ 61,191 (2015). On March 17, 2015, the Commission issued a notice establishing a refund effective date.

    Any interested persons desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL15-53-000 should file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214) by 5 p.m. ET on April 15, 2015. The Commission encourages electronic submission of interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original hard copy of the intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: March 26, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07537 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9925-64-Region 1] 2015 Annual Meeting of the Ozone Transport Commission AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the 2015 Annual Meeting of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC). This OTC meeting will explore options available for reducing ground-level ozone precursors in a multi-pollutant context. The Commission will be evaluating potential measures and considering actions in areas such as performance standards for electric generating units (EGUs) on high electric demand days, oil and gas boilers serving EGUs, small natural gas boilers, stationary generators, energy security/energy efficiency, architectural industrial and maintenance coatings, consumer products, institution commercial and industrial (ICI) boilers, vapor recovery at gas stations, large above ground storage tanks, seaports, aftermarket catalysts, lightering, and non-road idling.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on June 4, 2015 starting at 9:30 a.m. and ending at 4:00 p.m.

    Location: Holiday Inn Princeton hotel located at 100 Princeton Way, Princeton, NJ 085401; (609) 520-1200.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For documents and press inquiries contact: Ozone Transport Commission, 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 322, Washington, DC 20001; (202) 508-3840; email: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.otcair.org .

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 contain at Section 184 provisions for the Control of Interstate Ozone Air Pollution. Section 184(a) establishes an Ozone Transport Region (OTR) comprised of the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, parts of Virginia and the District of Columbia. The purpose of the OTC is to deal with ground-level ozone formation, transport, and control within the OTR.

    Type of Meeting: Open.

    Agenda: Copies of the final agenda will be available from the OTC office (202) 508-3840; by email: [email protected] or via the OTC Web site at http://www.otcair.org.

    Dated: March 11, 2015. Deborah A. Szaro, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07637 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0082; FRL-9925-61-OAR]; [EPA ICR No. 1736.07, OMB Control No. 2060.0328] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under EPA's Natural Gas STAR Program AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under EPA's Natural Gas STAR Program” (EPA ICR No. 1736.07, OMB Control No. 2060.0328) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through September 30, 2015. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0082, 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:

    Jerome Blackman, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, (6207A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-343-9630; fax number: 202-343-2342; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: Natural Gas STAR is a voluntary program sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that encourages oil and natural gas companies to adopt cost effective technologies and practice that improve operational efficiency and reduce methane emissions. Methane is the primary component of natural gas and a potent greenhouse gas. The Program works with oil and natural gas companies in the production, gathering & processing, transmission, and distribution sectors to remove barriers that inhibit the implementation of technologies and practices that reduce methane emissions. The Program effectively promotes the adoption of emission reduction technologies and practices by helping Natural Gas Star partners evaluate Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Partner Reported Opportunities (PROs) in the context of their current operations, and implement them where cost effective. Implementation of the Program's BMPs and PROs saves participants money, improves operational efficiency, and enhances the protection of the environment.

    Form Numbers

    Natural Gas STAR partners are required to sign and submit to EPA a one-page Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that describes the terms of participation in the Program. The MOU forms covered under this ICR include:

    • Production Partners: EPA Form No. 5900-105

    • Transmission Partners: EPA Form No. 5900-96

    • Distribution Partners: EPA Form No. 5900-98

    • Gathering and Processing Partners: EPA Form No. 5900-101

    • International Partners: EPA Form No. 5900-108

    Partners must complete and submit a Natural Gas STAR Implementation Plan within six to twelve months of signing the MOU. The Implementation Plan forms covered under this ICR include:

    • Production Partners: EPA Form No. 5900-103

    • Transmission Partners: EPA Form No. 5900-109

    • Distribution Partners: EPA Form No. 5900-97

    • Gathering and Processing Partners: EPA Form No. 5900-100

    • International Partners: EPA Form No. 5900-106

    After one full year of participation in the Program, EPA requires partners to submit an annual report documenting the previous year's methane emission reduction activities. The annual reporting forms covered under this ICR include:

    • Production Partners: EPA Form No. 5900-104

    • Transmission Partners: EPA Form No. 5900-95

    • Distribution Partners: EPA Form No. 5900-99

    • Gathering and Processing Partners: EPA Form No. 5900-102

    • International Partners: EPA Form No. 5900-107

    Respondents/affected entities: The gathering and processing, production, transmission, and distribution sectors of the natural gas industry.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: voluntary

    Estimated number of respondents: 109 (total).

    Frequency of response: 109.

    Total estimated burden: 5,201 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b)

    Total estimated cost: $477,657, includes $0 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: EPA expects that the burden associated with the final ICR submission will decrease slightly due to the Program's maturity and a decrease in number of new Program partners.

    Dated: March 20, 2015. Paul Gunning, Director, Climate Change Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07630 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9925-63-OA] Request for Nominations of Candidates to the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites nominations of scientific experts from a range of disciplines to be considered for appointment to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).

    DATES:

    Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than May 4, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

    General information about the CASAC is available at http://www.epa.gov/casac or by contacting Mr. Aaron Yeow, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the CASAC, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office (1400R), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington DC 20460; by telephone at 202-564-2050 or by email at [email protected]

    Background: The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) was established under section 109(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) (42 U.S.C. 7409) as an independent scientific advisory committee. The CASAC provides advice, information and recommendations on the scientific and technical aspects of air quality criteria and NAAQS under sections 108 and 109 of the Act. The CASAC is a Federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). As amended, 5 U.S.C., App. Section 109(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that EPA carry out a periodic review and revision, as appropriate, of the air quality criteria and the NAAQS for the six “criteria” air pollutants. As a Federal Advisory Committee, the CASAC conducts business in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and related regulations. Members of the CASAC constitute a distinguished body of non-EPA scientists and engineers who are nationally and internationally recognized experts in their respective fields. Members are appointed by the EPA Administrator for a three-year term.

    Request for Nominations: As required under the CAA section 109(d), the CASAC is composed of seven members, with at least one member of the National Academy of Sciences, one physician, and one person representing state air pollution control agencies. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts who have demonstrated experience in the following disciplines related to air pollution: ecological and welfare effects; environmental engineering; exposure assessment; biostatistics; toxicology; epidemiology; and/or risk assessment.

    The SAB Staff Office is especially interested in scientists with expertise described above who have knowledge and experience in air quality relating to criteria pollutants. For further information about the CASAC membership appointment process and schedule, please contact Mr. Aaron Yeow, DFO, by telephone at 202-564-2050 or by email at [email protected]

    Selection Criteria for the CASAC include:

    —Demonstrated scientific credentials and disciplinary expertise in relevant fields; —Willingness to commit time to the committee and demonstrated ability to work constructively and effectively on committees; —Background and experiences that would help members contribute to the diversity of perspectives on the committee, e.g., geographic, economic, social, cultural, educational backgrounds, professional affiliations, and other considerations; and —For the committee as a whole, consideration of the collective breadth and depth of scientific expertise; and a balance of scientific perspectives.

    As the committee undertakes specific advisory activities, the SAB Staff Office will consider two additional criteria for each new activity: absence of financial conflicts of interest and absence of an appearance of a loss of impartiality.

    How to Submit Nominations: Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified persons to be considered for appointment to this advisory committee. Individuals may self-nominate. Nominations should be submitted in electronic format (preferred) following the instructions for “Nominating Experts for Annual Membership” provided on the CASAC Web site. The form can be accessed through the “Nomination of Experts” link on the blue navigational bar on the CASAC Web site at http://www.epa.gov/casac. Nominators unable to submit nominations electronically as described below may submit a paper copy to Mr. Yeow at the contact information above. To be considered, all nominations should include the information requested. EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse candidates, EPA encourages nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups.

    The following information should be provided on the nomination form: contact information for the person making the nomination; contact information for the nominee; the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee; the nominee's curriculum vitae; and a biographical sketch of the nominee indicating current position, educational background, research activities, sources of research funding for the last two years, and recent service on other national advisory committees or national professional organizations. Persons having questions about the nomination process or the public comment process described below, or who are unable to submit nominations through the CASAC Web site, should contact Mr. Yeow, Designated Federal Officer, as identified above. The DFO will acknowledge receipt of nominations and in that acknowledgement will invite the nominee to provide any additional information that the nominee feels would be useful in considering the nomination, such as: availability to participate as a member of the committee; how the nominee's background, skills and experience would contribute to the diversity of the committee; and any questions the nominee has regarding membership. The names and biosketches of qualified nominees identified by respondents to this Federal Register notice, and additional experts identified by the SAB Staff, will be posted in a List of Candidates on the CASAC Web site at http://www.epa.gov/casac. Public comments on this List of Candidates will be accepted for 21 days from the date the list is posted. The public will be requested to provide relevant information or other documentation on nominees that the SAB Staff Office should consider in evaluating candidates.

    Members of the CASAC serve as Special Government Employees. Therefore, candidates invited to serve will be asked to submit the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form allows EPA to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between that person's public responsibilities as a Special Government Employee and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a loss of impartiality, as defined by Federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded through the “Ethics Requirements for Advisors” link on the blue navigational bar on the CASAC Web site at http://www.epa.gov/casac.

    Dated: March 24, 2015. Thomas H. Brennan, Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07634 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 6560-50-P
    FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY:

    Farm Credit Administration Board; Farm Credit Administration.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act, of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).

    DATE AND TIME:

    The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on April 9, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.

    ADDRESSES:

    Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090. Submit attendance requests via email to [email protected] See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further information about attendance requests.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. Please send an email to [email protected] at least 24 hours before the meeting. In your email include: Name, postal address, entity you are representing (if applicable), and telephone number. You will receive an email confirmation from us. Please be prepared to show a photo identification when you arrive. If you need assistance for accessibility reasons, or if you have any questions, contact Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, at (703) 883-4009. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

    Open Session A. Approval of Minutes • March 12, 2015 B. Reports • Quarterly Report on Economic Conditions and FCS Conditions Closed Session* • Office of Examination Quarterly Report

    *Session Closed-Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552b(c)(8)and (9).

    Dated: March 31, 2015. Dale L. Aultman, Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07682 Filed 3-31-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE CODE 6705-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radio Broadcasting Services; AM or FM Proposals To Change the Community of License AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The following applicants filed AM or FM proposals to change the community of license: Always Mountain Time, LLC, Station KIDN-FM, Facility ID 57339, BPH-20140311ACI, From Burns, CO, To Hayden, CO; McNeese State University, Station KBYS, Facility ID 17277, BPED-20150226ABQ, From Moss Bluff, LA, To Lake Charles, LA; Radio Hatteras, Inc., Station WHDX, Facility ID 16416, BPED-20150223ABD, From Buxton, NC, To Waves, NC; Riverfront Broadcasting, LLC, Station KZKK, Facility ID 15267, BPH-20150213ADF, From Huron, SD, To Parkston, SD; Saver Media, Inc., Station KQTC, Facility Id 19041, BPH-20150204AAG, From Eldorado, TX, To Christoval, TX.

    DATES:

    The agency must receive comments on or before June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tung Bui, 202-418-2700.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The full text of these applications is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 or electronically via the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base System, http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/cdbs_pa.htm. A copy of this application may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or www.BCPIWEB.com.

    Federal Communications Commission. James D. Bradshaw, Deputy Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07563 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [MB Docket No. 15-43; DA 15-253] Media Bureau Seeks Comment for Report Required by the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice; solicitation of comments.

    SUMMARY:

    This document solicits public comments and data for use in preparation of a report required by the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014. The report must contain an analysis of designated market areas and recommendations for fostering increased localism. The Commission is required to submit the report no later than June 3, 2016.

    DATES:

    Comments may be filed on or before May 12, 2015, and reply comments may be filed on or before June 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 15-43, DA-15-253, by any of the following methods:

    Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC, 20554.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dan Bring, Media Bureau (202) 418-2164, TTY (202) 418-7172, or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a synopsis of the Commission's document in MB Docket No. 15-43, DA-15-253, released February 25, 2015. The complete text of the document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    Synopsis

    1. By this Public Notice, the Media Bureau seeks data, information, and comment for use in preparation of a report required by the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), Public Law 113-200, sec. 109, 128 Stat. 2059, 2065 (2014). Section 109 of STELAR requires the Commission to submit a report on designated market areas and considerations for fostering increased localism to the appropriate congressional committees not later than 18 months after the date of enactment (i.e., June 3, 2016). Specifically, Section 109 states:

    SEC. 109. REPORT ON DESIGNATED MARKET AREAS.

    (a) IN GENERAL. Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report that contains—

    (1) An analysis of—

    (A) The extent to which consumers in each local market have access to broadcast programming from television broadcast stations located outside their local market, including through carriage by cable operators and satellite carriers of signals that are significantly viewed (within the meaning of section 340 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 340)); and

    (B) Whether there are technologically and economically feasible alternatives to the use of designated market areas to define markets that would provide consumers with more programming options and the potential impact such alternatives could have on localism and on broadcast television locally, regionally, and nationally; and

    (2) Recommendations on how to foster increased localism in counties served by out-of-State designated market areas.

    (b) CONSIDERATIONS FOR FOSTERING INCREASED LOCALISM. In making recommendations under subsection (a)(2), the Commission shall consider—

    (1) The impact that designated market areas that cross State lines have on access to local programming;

    (2) The impact that designated market areas have on local programming in rural areas; and

    (3) The state of local programming in States served exclusively by out-of-State designated market areas.

    2. The legislative history of Section 109 instructs the Commission to consider a number of factors in making its recommendations to foster increased localism in counties served by out-of-State designated market areas (DMA), including: (1) The impact DMAs that cross State lines have on access to local programming; (2) the impact DMAs have on local programming in rural areas; and (3) the impact such alternatives to the DMA system could have on localism, as well as broadcast television locally, regionally, and nationally. The legislative history also provides the following guidance regarding the report:

    The Committee intends that the FCC's report will interpret local programming to include not only television programming (in particular news, sports, weather, and other programming containing content relevant to a consumer's daily life) originating from and about the DMA in which a consumer resides, but also television programming originating from and about the State in which a consumer resides.

    The Committee also intends that the analysis concerning alternatives to the DMA system should explore in detail the merits and advantages to those alternatives to consumers, and not just the impact those alternatives may have on broadcast television.

    3. To prepare the STELAR Section 109 Report, we seek comment on the appropriate methodologies and data sources, as well as the submission of data and information, to analyze the extent consumers have access to broadcast stations located outside their local markets. We ask commenters to identify technologically and economically feasible alternatives to DMAs that would provide more programming options and the potential impact of such alternatives on localism and on broadcast television locally, regionally, and nationally. We also ask commenters to provide recommendations that would foster localism in counties served by out-of-State DMAs and the impact of such recommendations as required under Section 109(b).

    Data Analysis—Section 109(a)(1)(A)

    4. Section 109(a)(1)(A) requires the Commission to analyze the extent to which consumers in each local market have access to broadcast programming from television broadcast stations located outside their local markets, including through carriage by cable operators and satellite carriers of signals that are significantly viewed (within the meaning of section 340 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 340)). We interpret Section 109(a)(1)(A) to require the Commission to identify in each DMA the out-of-market broadcast stations available over-the-air or carried by DBS, cable, and telephone MVPDs, and the number of consumers that have access to each out-of-market broadcast station through any of these distribution means. In 2011, pursuant to STELA, the Commission reported to Congress regarding the extent that consumers in a State receive broadcast signals from stations licensed to another State as well as the extent to which consumers have access to in-State broadcast programming, among other things. While the focus of the Report to Congress pursuant to Section 304 of the Satellite Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (2011 STELA Report) differed somewhat from the requirements of Section 109, it provided information about consumer access to out-of-State and out-of-DMA broadcast stations. We believe, however, that information at the DMA level, as contained in the 2011 STELA Report, may not be fully responsive to Congress' directive in STELAR. We note that Section 109(a)(2) seeks recommendations to foster localism in counties served by out-of-State DMAs. Thus, we believe we should report data on out-of-market broadcast stations on a county basis within each DMA. We request comment on this belief and input on additional data and analysis that would be fully responsive.

    5. Section 109(a)(1)(A) requires us to consider access to broadcast programming, including through DBS and cable carriage. We seek comment on the appropriate methodologies and submission of essential data for the analysis. Do data exist that would allow us to determine consumer access to out-of-market broadcast programming from one source regardless of distribution technology? In the absence of one data source, we tentatively conclude that we should consider the availability of broadcast stations over-the-air by calculating the number of housing units in each DMA reached by the predicted broadcast signal contour of each out-of-market broadcast station, as we did in the 2011 STELA Report. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

    6. We believe we have access to comprehensive data for analysis of DBS carriage and over-the-air reception of out-of-market broadcast stations. We note that Section 108 of STELAR requires DBS carriers to provide data regarding satellite carriage of broadcast stations and that these data should be useful for this report. We seek comment on whether the Section 108 reports DBS operators submit are sufficient for this purpose. Will these reports include the carriage of significantly viewed signals that we must take into consideration?

    7. With respect to cable and telephone MVPD carriage of out-of-market broadcast stations, we seek comment on what data are available that would be adequate for such analysis and what methodology we could use to analyze the available data. In 2011, pursuant to STELA, the Bureau was unable to provide separate data for cable and telephone MVPDs, and therefore instead the Bureau used Nielsen data to identify for each DMA the out-of-market broadcast television stations that earned a cumulative rating of at least 2.5 percent from all sources. Are comprehensive data available that would enable us to determine for each county in each DMA the out-of-market broadcast stations carried by each cable and telephone MVPD? In the absence of such data, we seek comment on the use of Nielsen data and the methodology used for the 2011 STELA Report. What other options are available to the Commission to analyze this question?

    8. In this regard, we note that the Commission collects cable system data in its Annual Report of Cable Television Systems (FCC Form 325) and in its Annual Report on Cable Prices, but these data are not comprehensive. Only a limited number of cable systems must file FCC Form 325. All cable systems with more than 20,000 subscribers are subject to the reporting requirement as are a sample of cable systems with fewer than 20,000 subscribers. Other than on a sample basis, cable systems with fewer than 20,000 subscribers, however, are not required to report information to the Commission. Also, many rural counties of interest to the STELAR Section 109 Report may be served by cable systems not subject to the requirement.

    9. Cable systems subject to the FCC Form 325 reporting requirement provide the Commission with a list of the broadcast stations carried by each reporting system. The geographic configuration of a cable system is determined by its physical system, which consists of a cable system technically integrated to a principal headend. Cable system data are provided for the entire system. The data do not correspond to census blocks, counties, DMAs, or other common geographic units and, therefore, cannot be aggregated or disaggregated to provide estimates for those geographic units or households. Thus, the data cable companies provide to the Commission do not permit analysis on a comparable geographic basis to data available for over-the-air broadcast stations, DBS carriage of broadcast stations, or the Bureau of the Census household data.

    10. The Commission publishes annually a cable price report, which collects a listing of broadcast stations carried by a random sample of cable operators. According to the Bureau's most recent report, over 33,000 communities are served by cable operators. The report, however, included information on only 800 communities. As such, it does not provide comprehensive data and many rural counties of interest to the STELAR Section 109 Report may be served by cable operators not included in the Commission's cable price report. We seek comment on the availability of other more comprehensive data sources that might be available to the Commission to perform the required analysis.

    11. In the absence of comprehensive data, we propose including case studies for specific counties where commenters have indicated a lack of local programming. In 2011, pursuant to STELA, the Bureau undertook a number of case studies for specific counties in which commenters indicated a lack of in-State broadcast programming. For each case, the Bureau examined the extent to which consumers had access to in-State programming over the air, from cable operators and from DBS operators on a county basis within each relevant DMA. The Bureau described the availability of in-State broadcast stations and the carriage of in-State stations by DBS operators and cable systems. For cable system information, the Bureau identified the cable systems in the counties and communities under study using the Commission's Cable Operations and Licensing System. To determine the carriage of in-State broadcast stations, the Bureau used cable operators' 2010 FCC Form 325 submissions, to the extent they were available, and publicly available information, including the Warren Television & Cable Factbook data and the Web sites of individual cable systems.

    12. For each case study for the STELAR Section 109 Report, we propose to examine, using the best available information, the extent to which consumers have access to out-of-market broadcast programming from DBS, cable, and telephone MVPDs, and over the air. We seek comment on the use of case studies for our report. Is there a better approach to case studies? We seek data, information, and comment for the analysis of cable and telephone MVPD carriage of out-of-market broadcast stations.

    13. Out-of-market broadcast stations may provide multiple programming streams. Should the STELAR Section 109 Report include all out-of-market broadcast programming? We seek comment on the appropriate methodologies and the availability of data for including multiple programming steams. Are there other mechanisms for carriage that we should include (e.g., online access to broadcast programming)? Commenters are asked to consider these issues and to provide any additional suggestions and data for the quantitative analysis required for this Report.

    Alternatives and Recommendations—Sections 109(a)(1)(B), (a)(2), and (b)

    14. Sections 109(a)(1)(B), (a)(2), and (b) require the Commission to analyze alternatives to the use of DMAs to define markets and to make recommendations on how to foster increased localism in counties served by out-of State DMAs taking into account a number of factors. Specifically, Section 109(a)(1)(B) requires the Commission to analyze whether there are technologically and economically feasible alternatives to the use of designated market areas to define markets that would provide consumers with more programming options and the potential impact such alternatives could have on localism and on broadcast television locally, regionally, and nationally. Section 109(a)(2) requires the Commission to make recommendations on how to foster increased localism in counties served by out-of-State designated market areas. Section 109(b) directs the Commission to consider three enumerated factors related to the impact of DMAs on access to local programming when making its recommendations.

    15. We ask commenters to provide suggested alternatives to the use of DMAs to define market areas, pursuant to Section 109(a)(1)(B). For each alternative, we request that commenters explain how the alternative would provide consumers with more programming options and what the impact would be on localism and on broadcast television locally, regionally and nationally. What specific programming options should we consider in our analysis? For instance, should we consider news, sports, weather, coverage of State-level politics and government, or other content relevant to a consumers' daily life, including advertising from local businesses, and if so how should we identify and consider such content? Commenters also should address the technological and economic feasibility of each alternative proposed and provide data and information on these issues. To analyze the various alternatives, we request suggestions on how to evaluate and compare the proposed alternatives for the STELAR Section 109 Report.

    16. Section 109(a)(2) requires the Commission to make recommendations on how to foster increased localism in counties served by out-of-State DMAs. In making recommendations, Section 109(b) instructs the Commission to consider: (1) the impact that DMAs that cross State lines have on access to local programming; (2) the impact that DMAs have on local programming in rural areas; and (3) the state of local programming in States served exclusively by out-of-State DMAs. We seek recommendations that could increase television programming from and about the DMA, and television programming from and about the State, in which a consumer resides. We specifically ask commenters to address the three considerations identified in Section 109(b). In particular, how do DMAs affect access to local programming for each of the three areas of concern? To what extent do consumers in DMAs that cross State lines have access to television programming from and about their State? How will the proposed recommendations foster increased local programming for consumers residing in such locations?

    17. To assist us in analyzing proposed recommendations that we will consider including in the STELAR Section 109 Report, we also seek comment on the effects of each recommendation on consumers, local broadcast stations, the number of stations that MVPDs would be required to carry, the advertising market, broadcast network affiliation agreements and areas of exclusivity. What would be the benefits and costs of each recommendation? How would the proposed recommendation provide consumers with increased local programming without curtailing the broadcast programming consumers currently view? Are there other criteria we should consider when evaluating recommendations to foster increased localism? We seek comment on these issues and any other comments that address the requirements of Section 109 of STELAR.

    Procedural Matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    19. For further information about this Public Notice, please contact Marcia Glauberman at (202) 418-7046, [email protected] or Dan Bring at (202) 418-2164, [email protected] Press inquiries should be directed to Janice Wise at (202) 418-8165, [email protected]

    Federal Communications Commission. Thomas Horan, Chief of Staff, Media Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07561 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreement Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. A copy of the agreement is available through the Commission's Web site (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or [email protected].

    Agreement No.: 012324.

    Title: NMCC/Grimaldi Space Charter Agreement.

    Parties: Grimaldi Deep Sea S.p.A; Grimaldi Euromed S.p.A.; Nissan Motor Car Carrier Co., Ltd.; World Logistics Service (U.S.A.), Inc.

    Filing Party: Eric. C. Jeffrey, Esq.; Nixon Peabody LLP; 401 9th Street NW., Suite 900, Washington, DC 20004.

    Synopsis: The Agreement authorizes the parties to charter space to/from one another for the transportation of vehicles and other Ro/Ro cargo in the trade between the United States, on the one hand, and Europe, Africa, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East on the other hand.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: March 27, 2015. Karen V. Gregory, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07487 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 6730-01-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 27, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:

    1. First State Bancorp, Inc., Combined Retirement Benefit Plan (formerly known as First State Bancorp, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan), Caruthersville, Missouri; to acquire additional voting shares, for a total of 40 percent, of the voting shares of First State Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First State Bank and Trust Company, Inc., both in Caruthersville, Missouri.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 30, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07557 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 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 § 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 17, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. Elizabeth J. Hyduke-Kelm, Golden Valley, Minnesota, individually and as co-Trustee of a trust benefiting Elizabeth J. Hyduke-Kelm, and Elizabeth J. Hyduke-Kelm as co-Trustee of three family trusts, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Stephen P. Hyduke, individually and as co-Trustee of a trust benefiting Stephen P. Hyduke, Minneapolis, Minnesota; to each acquire voting shares of Duke Financial Group, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Peoples Bank of Commerce, Cambridge, Minnesota, and State Bank of New Prague, New Prague, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 30, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07556 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The FTC intends to ask the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to extend for an additional three years the current Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) clearance for the FTC's enforcement of the information collection requirements in four consumer financial regulations enforced by the Commission. Those clearances expire on June 30, 2015.

    DATES:

    Comments must be filed by June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “Regs BEMZ, PRA Comments, P084812” on your comment and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/RegsBEMZpra by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, mail or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements should be addressed to Carole Reynolds or Thomas Kane, Attorneys, Division of Financial Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3224.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The four regulations covered by this notice are:

    (1) Regulations promulgated under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq. (“ECOA”) (“Regulation B”) (OMB Control Number: 3084-0087);

    (2) Regulations promulgated under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. (“EFTA”) (“Regulation E”) (OMB Control Number: 3084-0085);

    (3) Regulations promulgated under the Consumer Leasing Act, 15 U.S.C. 1667 et seq. (“CLA”) (“Regulation M”) (OMB Control Number: 3084-0086); and

    (4) Regulations promulgated under the Truth-In-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. (“TILA”) (“Regulation Z”) (OMB Control Number: 3084-0088).

    The FTC enforces these statutes as to all businesses engaged in conduct these laws cover unless these businesses (such as federally chartered or insured depository institutions) are subject to the regulatory authority of another federal agency.

    Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”), Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010), almost all rulemaking authority for the ECOA, EFTA, CLA, and TILA transferred from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) on July 21, 2011 (“transfer date”). To implement this transferred authority, the CFPB published for public comment and issued interim final rules for new regulations in 12 CFR part 1002 (Regulation B), 12 CFR part 1005 (Regulation E), 12 CFR part 1013 (Regulation M), and 12 CFR 1026 (Regulation Z) for those entities under its rulemaking jurisdiction.1 Although the Dodd-Frank Act transferred most rulemaking authority under ECOA, EFTA, CLA, and TILA to the CFPB, the Board retained rulemaking authority for certain motor vehicle dealers 2 under all of these statutes and also for certain interchange-related requirements under EFTA.3

    1 12 CFR 1002 (Reg. B) (76 FR 79442, Dec. 21, 2011); 12 CFR 1005 (Reg. E) (76 FR 81020, Dec. 27, 2011); 12 CFR 1013 (Reg. M) (76 FR 78500, Dec. 19, 2011); 12 CFR 1026 (Reg. Z) (76 FR 79768, Dec. 22, 2011).

    2 Generally, these are dealers “predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of motor vehicles, or both.” See Dodd-Frank Act, § 1029(a), -(c).

    3See Dodd-Frank Act, § 1075 (these requirements are implemented through Board Regulation II, 12 CFR 235, rather than EFTA's implementing Regulation E).

    As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, the FTC and the CFPB now share the authority to enforce Regulations B, E, M, and Z for entities for which the FTC had enforcement authority before the Act, except for certain motor vehicle dealers. Because of this shared enforcement jurisdiction, the two agencies have divided the FTC's previously-cleared PRA burden between them,4 except that the FTC retained all of the part of that burden associated with motor vehicle dealers (for brevity, referred to in the burden summaries below as a “carve-out”).5 The division of PRA burden hours not attributable to motor vehicle dealers is reflected in the CFPB's PRA clearance requests to OMB, as well as in the FTC's burden estimates below.

    4 The CFPB also factored into its burden estimates respondents over which it has jurisdiction but the FTC does not.

    5 See Dodd-Frank Act § 1029 (a), as limited by subsection (b). Subsection (b) does not preclude CFPB regulatory oversight regarding, among others, businesses that extend retail credit or retail leases for motor vehicles in which the credit or lease offered is provided directly from those businesses, rather than unaffiliated third parties, to consumers. It is not practicable, however, for PRA purposes, to estimate the portion of dealers that engage in one form of financing versus another (and that would or would not be subject to CFPB oversight). Thus, FTC staff's “carve-out” for this PRA burden analysis reflects a general estimated volume of motor vehicle dealers. This attribution does not change actual enforcement authority.

    As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, the FTC generally has sole authority to enforce Regulations B, E, M, and Z regarding certain motor vehicle dealers predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of motor vehicles, or both, that, among other things, assign their contracts to unaffiliated third parties.6 Because the FTC has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce these rules for such motor vehicle dealers and retains its concurrent authority with the CFPB for other types of motor vehicle dealers, and in view of the different types of motor vehicle dealers, the FTC is including for itself the entire PRA burden for all motor vehicle dealers in the burden estimates below.

    6See Dodd-Frank Act, § 1029(a), -(c).

    The regulations impose certain recordkeeping and disclosure requirements associated with providing credit or with other financial transactions. Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, Federal agencies must get OMB approval for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” includes agency requests or requirements to submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. See 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c).

    All four of these regulations require covered entities to keep certain records, but FTC staff believes these records are kept in the normal course of business even absent the particular recordkeeping requirements.7 Covered entities, however, may incur some burden associated with ensuring that they do not prematurely dispose of relevant records (i.e., during the time span they must retain records under the applicable regulation).

    7 PRA “burden” does not include effort expended in the ordinary course of business, regardless of any regulatory requirement. 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2).

    The regulations also require covered entities to make disclosures to third-parties. Related compliance involves set-up/monitoring and transaction-specific costs. “Set-up” burden, incurred only by covered new entrants, includes their identifying the applicable required disclosures, determining how best to comply, and designing and developing compliance systems and procedures. “Monitoring” burden, incurred by all covered entities, includes their time and costs to review changes to regulatory requirements, make necessary revisions to compliance systems and procedures, and to monitor the ongoing operation of systems and procedures to ensure continued compliance. “Transaction-related” burden refers to the time and cost associated with providing the various required disclosures in individual transactions. While this burden varies with the number of transactions, the figures shown for transaction-related burden in the tables that follow are estimated averages.

    The required disclosures do not impose PRA burden on some covered entities because they make those disclosures in their normal course of activities. For other covered entities that do not, their compliance burden will vary widely depending on the extent to which they have developed effective computer-based or electronic systems and procedures to communicate and document required disclosures.8

    8 For example, large companies may use computer-based and/or electronic means to provide required disclosures, including issuing some disclosures en masse, e.g., notices of changes in terms. Smaller companies may have less automated compliance systems but may nonetheless rely on electronic mechanisms for disclosures and recordkeeping. Regardless of size, some entities may utilize compliance systems that are fully integrated into their general business operational system; if so, they may have minimal additional burden. Other entities may have incorporated fewer of these approaches into their systems and thus may have a higher burden.

    Calculating the burden associated with the four regulations' disclosure requirements is very difficult because of the highly diverse group of affected entities. The “respondents” included in the following burden calculations consist of, among others, credit and lease advertisers, creditors, owners (such as purchasers and assignees) of credit obligations, financial institutions, service providers, certain government agencies and others involved in delivering electronic fund transfers (“EFTs”) of government benefits, and lessors.9 The burden estimates represent FTC staff's best assessment, based on its knowledge and expertise relating to the financial services industry. Staff considered the wide variations in covered entities' (1) size and location; (2) credit or lease products offered, extended, or advertised, and their particular terms; (3) EFT types used; (4) types and frequency of adverse actions taken; (5) types of appraisal reports utilized; and (6) computer systems and electronic features of compliance operations.

    9 The Commission generally does not have jurisdiction over banks, thrifts, and federal credit unions under the applicable regulations.

    The cost estimates that follow relate solely to labor costs, and they include the time necessary to train employees how to comply with the regulations. Staff calculated labor costs by multiplying appropriate hourly wage rates by the burden hours described above. The hourly rates used were $56 for managerial oversight, $42 for skilled technical services, and $17 for clerical work. These figures are averages drawn from Bureau of Labor Statistics data.10 Further, the FTC cost estimates assume the following labor category apportionments, except where otherwise indicated below: Recordkeeping—10% skilled technical, 90% clerical; disclosure—10% managerial, 90% skilled technical.

    10 These inputs are based broadly on mean hourly data found within the “Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic News Release,” April 1, 2014, Table 1, “National employment and wage data from the Occupational Employment Statistics survey by occupation, May 2013.” http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.t01.htm.

    The applicable PRA requirements impose minimal capital or other non-labor costs. Affected entities generally already have the necessary equipment for other business purposes. Similarly, FTC staff estimates that compliance with these rules entails minimal printing and copying costs beyond that associated with documenting financial transactions in the ordinary course of business.

    1. Regulation B

    The ECOA prohibits discrimination in the extension of credit. Regulation B implements the ECOA, establishing disclosure requirements to assist customers in understanding their rights under the ECOA and recordkeeping requirements to assist agencies in enforcement. Regulation B applies to retailers, mortgage lenders, mortgage brokers, finance companies, and others.

    Recordkeeping

    FTC staff estimates that Regulation B's general recordkeeping requirements affect 530,080 credit firms subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, at an average annual burden of 1.25 hours per firm for a total of 662,600 hours.11 Staff also estimates that the requirement that mortgage creditors monitor information about race/national origin, sex, age, and marital status imposes a maximum burden of one minute each (of skilled technical time) for approximately 2.9 million credit applications (based on industry data regarding the approximate number of mortgage purchase and refinance originations), for a total of 48,333 hours.12 Staff also estimates that recordkeeping of self-testing subject to the regulation would affect 1,375 firms, with an average annual burden of one hour (of skilled technical time) per firm, for a total of 1,375 hours, and that recordkeeping of any corrective action as a result of self-testing would affect 10% of them, i.e., 138 firms, with an average annual burden of four hours (of skilled technical time) per firm, for a total of 552 hours.13 Keeping records of race/national origin, sex, age, and marital status requires an estimated one minute of skilled technical time. Recordkeeping for the self-test responsibility and of any corrective actions requires an estimated one hour and four hours, respectively, of skilled technical time.

    11 Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act amends the ECOA to require financial institutions to collect and report information concerning credit applications by women- or minority-owned businesses and small businesses, effective on the July 21, 2011 transfer date. Both the CFPB and the Board have exempted affected entities from complying with this requirement until a date set by the prospective final rules these agencies issue to implement the Dodd-Frank Act's requirements. The Commission will address PRA burden for its enforcement of these requirements after the CFPB and the Board have issued the associated final rules.

    12 Regulation B contains model forms that creditors may use to gather and retain the required information.

    13 In contrast to banks, for example, entities under FTC jurisdiction are not subject to audits for compliance with Regulation B; rather they may be subject to FTC investigations and enforcement actions. This may impact the level of self-testing (as specifically defined by Regulation B) in a given year, and staff has sought to address such factors in its burden estimates.

    Disclosure

    Regulation B requires that creditors (i.e., entities that regularly participate in the decision whether to extend credit under Regulation B) provide notices whenever they take adverse action, such as denial of a credit application. It requires entities that extend mortgage credit with first liens to provide a copy of the appraisal report or other written valuation to applicants.14 Finally, Regulation B also requires that for accounts which spouses may use or for which they are contractually liable, creditors who report credit history must do so in a manner reflecting both spouses' participation. Further, it requires creditors that collect applicant characteristics for purposes of conducting a self-test to disclose to those applicants that: (1) Providing the information is optional; (2) the creditor will not take the information into account in any aspect of the credit transactions; and (3) if applicable, the information will be noted by visual observation or surname if the applicant chooses not to provide it.15

    14 While the rule also requires the creditor to provide a short written disclosure regarding the appraisal process, the disclosure is now provided by the CFPB, and may be classified as a warning label supplied by the Federal government. As a result, it is not a “collection of information” for PRA purposes; it is not, therefore, included in burden estimates below. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2), and CFPB, Final Rule, Disclosure and Delivery Requirements for Copies of Appraisals and Other Written Valuations Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B), 78 FR 7216, 7247 (Jan. 31, 2013).

    15 The disclosure may be provided orally or in writing. The model form provided by Regulation B assists creditors in providing the written disclosure.

    Burden Totals

    Recordkeeping: 712,860 hours (637,310 + 75,550 carve-out for motor vehicles); $15,031,620 ($13,550,520 + $1,481,100 carve-out for motor vehicles), associated labor costs.

    Disclosures: 1,166,563 hours (1,036,040 + 130,523 carve-out for motor vehicles); $50,628,816 ($44,964,122 + $5,664,694 carve-out for motor vehicles), associated labor costs.

    Regulation B—Disclosures—Burden Hours Disclosures Setup/Monitoring 1 Respondents Average
  • burden per
  • respondent
  • (hours)
  • Total setup/monitoring burden
  • (hours)
  • Transaction-related 2 Number of
  • transactions
  • Average
  • burden per transaction
  • (minutes)
  • Total
  • transaction burden
  • (hours)
  • Total burden
  • (hours)
  • Credit history reporting 132,520 .25 33,130 66,260,000 .25 276,083 309,213 Adverse action notices 530,000 .75 397,500 106,016,000 .25 441,733 839,293 Appraisal reports/written valuations 5,000 1 5,000 1,450,000 .50 12,083 17,083 Self-test disclosures 1,375 .5 688 68,750 .25 286 974 Total 1,166,563 1 The estimates assume that all applicable entities would be affected, with respect to appraisal reports and other written valuations (with the FTC having approximately one-half of that amount). An increase in burden is noted due to changed rules requiring provision of appraisals reports as well as other written valuations, for first lien mortgages. The former “Appraisal disclosure” item was deleted; the information is now supplied by the rule. 2 The transaction-related figures reflect a decrease in mortgage transactions, compared to prior FTC estimates. The figures assume that approximately three-quarters of applicable mortgage transactions (.75 × 2,900,000, or 2,175,000) would not otherwise provide this information, and that another 725,000 transactions (not closed, etc.) would be affected; the FTC would have one-half of the total, or 1,450,000.
    Regulation B—Recordkeeping and Disclosures—Cost Required task Managerial Time
  • (hours)
  • Cost
  • ($56/hr.)
  • Skilled technical Time
  • (hours)
  • Cost
  • ($42/hr.)
  • Clerical Time
  • (hours)
  • Cost
  • ($17/hr.)
  • Total Cost
  • ($)
  • Total Cost
  • ($)
  • General recordkeeping 0 $0 66,260 $2,782,920 596,340 $10,137,780 $12,920,700 Other recordkeeping 0 0 48,333 2,029,986 0 0 2,029,986 Recordkeeping of self-test 0 0 1,375 57,750 0 0 57,750 Recordkeeping of corrective action 0 0 552 23,184 0 0 23,184 Total Recordkeeping 15,031,620 Disclosures: Credit history reporting 30,921 1,731,576 278,292 11,688,264 0 0 13,419,840 Adverse action notices 83,929 4,700,024 755,364 31,725,288 0 0 36,425,312 Appraisal reports 1708 95,648 15,375 645,750 0 0 741,398 Self-test disclosure 97 5,432 877 36,834 0 0 42,266 Total Disclosures 50,628,816 Total Recordkeeping and Disclosures 65,660,436
    2. Regulation E

    The EFTA requires that covered entities provide consumers with accurate disclosure of the costs, terms, and rights relating to EFT and certain other services. Regulation E implements the EFTA, establishing disclosure and other requirements to aid consumers and recordkeeping requirements to assist agencies with enforcement. It applies to financial institutions, retailers, gift card issuers and others that provide gift cards, service providers, various federal and state agencies offering EFTs, etc. Staff estimates that Regulation E's recordkeeping requirements affect 327,460 firms offering EFT services to consumers and that are subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, at an average annual burden of one hour per firm, for a total of 327,460 hours.

    Burden Totals

    Recordkeeping: 327,460 hours (312,500 + 15,040 carve-out); $6,385,470 ($6,092,190 + $293,280 carve-out), associated labor costs.

    Disclosures: 7,179,271 hours (7,162,564 + 16,707 carve-out); $311,588,696 ($310,863,608 + $725,088 carve-out), associated labor costs.

    Regulation E—Disclosures—Burden Hours Disclosures Setup/Monitoring Respondents Average
  • burden per
  • respondent
  • (hours)
  • Total setup/monitoring burden
  • (hours)
  • Transaction-related Number of transactions Average
  • burden per
  • transaction
  • (minutes)
  • Total
  • transaction burden
  • (hours)
  • Total burden
  • (hours)
  • Initial terms 50,000 .5 25,000 500,000 .02 167 25,167 Change in terms 12,500 .5 6,250 16,500,000 .02 5,500 11,750 Periodic statements 50,000 .5 25,000 600,000,000 .02 200,000 225,000 Error resolution 50,000 .5 25,000 500,000 5 41,667 66,667 Transaction receipts 50,000 .5 25,000 2,500,000,000 .02 833,333 858,333 Preauthorized transfers 1 257,520 .5 128,760 6,438,000 .25 26,825 155,585 Service provider notices 50,000 .25 12,500 500,000 .25 2,083 14,583 Govt. benefit notices 5,000 .5 2,500 50,000,000 .25 208,333 210,833 ATM notices 250 .25 63 50,000,000 .25 208,333 208,396 Electronic check conversion 2 57,520 .5 28,760 1,150,400 .02 383 29,144 Payroll cards 125 .5 63 500,000 3 25,000 25,063 Overdraft services 50,000 .5 25,000 2,500,000 .02 833 25,833 Gift cards 3 25,000 .5 12,500 1,250,000,000 .02 416,667 429,167 Remittance transfers: 4 Disclosures 5,000 1.25 6,250 100,000,000 .9 1,500,000 1,506,250 Error resolution 5,000 1.25 6,250 125,000,000 .9 1,875,000 1,881,250 Agent compliance 5,000 1.25 6,250 100,000,000 .9 1,500,000 1,506,250 Total 7,179,271 1 Preauthorized transfer respondents and transactions have decreased slightly. 2 Electronic check conversion respondents and transactions have decreased slightly. 3 Gift card entities and transactions under FTC jurisdiction (which excludes banks and bank transactions) have decreased. 4 Remittance transfer respondents now focus primarily on those that may offer services and are responsible for legal requirements (not separate inclusion of their offices). Legal changes have eased compliance, but they require system changes causing an increase in setup burden and a decrease in transaction burden. Remittance transfers have increased substantially but error resolutions have increased to a smaller degree due to changes in legal requirements. The resulting transaction burden in each category for remittance transfers has increased due to the upswing in transaction volume.
    Regulation E—Recordkeeping and Disclosures—Cost Required task Managerial Time
  • (hours)
  • Cost
  • ($56/hr.)
  • Skilled technical Time
  • (hours)
  • Cost
  • ($42/hr.)
  • Clerical Time
  • (hours)
  • Cost
  • ($17/hr.)
  • Total cost
  • ($)
  • Recordkeeping 0 $0 32,746 $1,375,332 294,714 $5,010,138 $6,385,470 Disclosures: Initial terms 2,517 140,952 22,650 951,300 0 0 1,092,252 Change in terms 1,175 65,800 10,750 451,500 0 0 517,300 Periodic statements 22,500 1,260,000 202,500 8,505,000 0 0 9,765,000 Error resolution 6,667 373,352 60,000 2,520,000 0 0 2,893,352 Transaction receipts 85,833 4,806,648 772,500 32,445,000 0 0 37,251,648 Preauthorized transfers 15,565 871,248 140,027 5,881,134 0 0 6,752,382 Service provider notices 1,458 81,648 13,125 551,250 0 0 632,898 Govt. benefit notices 21,083 1,180,648 189,750 7,969,500 0 0 9,150,148 ATM notices 20,840 1,167,040 187,556 7,877,352 0 0 9,044,392 Electronic check conversion 2,919 163,184 26,230 1,101,660 0 0 1,264,844 Payroll cards 2,506 140,336 22,557 947,394 0 0 1,087,730 Overdraft services 2,583 144,648 23,250 976,500 0 0 1,121,148 Gift cards 85,833 2,403,352 386,250 16,222,500 0 0 18,626,852 Remittance transfers: Disclosures 150,625 8,435,000 1,355,625 56,936,250 0 0 65,371,250 Error resolution 188,125 10,535,000 1,693,125 71,111,250 0 0 81,646,250 Agent compliance 150,625 8,435,000 1,355,625 56,936,250 0 0 65,371,250 Total Disclosures 311,588,696 Total Recordkeeping and Disclosures 317,974,166
    3. Regulation M

    The CLA requires that covered entities provide consumers with accurate disclosure of the costs and terms of leases. Regulation M implements the CLA, establishing disclosure requirements to help consumers comparison shop and understand the terms of leases and recordkeeping requirements. It applies to vehicle lessors (such as auto dealers, independent leasing companies, and manufacturers' captive finance companies), computer lessors (such as computer dealers and other retailers), furniture lessors, various electronic commerce lessors, diverse types of lease advertisers, and others.

    Staff estimates that Regulation M's recordkeeping requirements affect approximately 32,577 firms within the FTC's jurisdiction leasing products to consumers at an average annual burden of one hour per firm, for a total of 32,577 hours.

    Burden Totals 16

    16 Recordkeeping and disclosure burden estimates for Regulation M are more substantial for motor vehicle leases than for other leases, including burden estimates based on market changes and regulatory definitions of coverage. As noted above, for purposes of burden calculations, and in view of the different types of motor vehicle dealers, the FTC is including for itself the entire PRA burden for all motor vehicle dealers in the burden estimates below.

    Recordkeeping: 32,577 hours (5,000 + 27,577 carve-out); $635,259 ($97,500 + $537,759 carve-out), associated labor costs.

    Disclosures: 73,933 hours (2,986 + 70,947 carve-out); $3,208,702 ($129,598 + $3,079,104 carve-out), associated labor costs.

    Regulation M—Disclosures—Burden Hours Disclosures Setup/Monitoring Respondents Average burder
  • per
  • respondent
  • (hours)
  • Total setup/monitoring burden
  • (hours)
  • Transaction-related Number of transactions Average burdern per transaction Total
  • transaction burden
  • (hours)
  • Total burden
  • (hours)
  • Motor Vehicle Leases 1 27,577 1 27,577 4,000,000 .50 33,333 60,910 Other Leases 2 5,000 .50 2,500 100,000 .25 417 2,917 Advertising 3 15,181 .50 7,591 603,490 .25 2,515 10,106 Total 73,933 1 This category focuses on consumer vehicle leases. Vehicle leases are subject to more lease disclosure requirements (pertaining to computation of payment obligations) than other lease transactions. (Only consumer leases for more than four months are covered.) See 15 U.S.C. 1667(1); 12 CFR 1013.2(e)(1). While the number of respondents for vehicle leases has decreased, the number of vehicle lease transactions has increased, with market changes, from past FTC estimates. Additionally, leases up to $54,600 (plus an annual adjustment) are now covered. The resulting total burden has increased. 2 This category focuses on all types of consumer leases other than vehicle leases. It includes leases for computers, other electronics, small appliances, furniture, and other transactions. (Only consumer leases for more than four months are covered.) See 15 U.S.C. 1667(1); 12 CFR 1013.2(e)(1). The number of respondents has decreased, based on market changes in companies and types of transactions they offer, and the PRA burden sharing with the CFPB; the number of such transactions has also declined, based on types of transactions offered that are covered by the CLA. Leases up to $54,600 (plus an annual adjustment) are now covered. The resulting total burden has decreased. 3 Respondents for advertising have increased as have lease advertisements, based on market changes, from past FTC estimates. More types of lease advertisements are occurring. The resulting total burden has increased.
    Regulation M—Recordkeeping and Disclosures—Cost Required task Managerial Time
  • (hours)
  • Cost
  • ($56/hr.)
  • Skilled technical Time
  • (hours)
  • Cost
  • ($42/hr.)
  • Clerical Time
  • (hours)
  • Cost
  • ($17/hr.)
  • Total cost
  • ($)
  • Recordkeeping 0 $0 3,258 $136,836 29,319 $498,423 $635,259 Disclosures: Motor Vehicle Leases 6,091 341,096 58,419 2,302,398 0 0 2,643,494 Other Leases 292 16,352 2,625 110,250 0 0 126,602 Advertising 1,011 56,616 9,095 381,990 0 0 438,606 Total Disclosures 3,208,702 Total Recordkeeping and Disclosures 3,843,961
    4. Regulation Z

    The TILA was enacted to foster comparison credit shopping and informed credit decision making by requiring creditors and others to provide accurate disclosures regarding the costs and terms of credit to consumers. Regulation Z implements the TILA, establishing disclosure requirements to assist consumers and recordkeeping requirements to assist agencies with enforcement. These requirements pertain to open-end and closed-end credit and apply to various types of entities, including mortgage companies; finance companies; auto dealerships; private education loan companies; merchants who extend credit for goods or services; credit advertisers; acquirers of mortgages; and others. New requirements have been established in the mortgage area, including for high cost mortgages, higher-priced mortgage loans,17 ability to pay of mortgage consumers, mortgage servicing, loan originators, and certain integrated mortgage disclosures.

    17 While Regulation Z also requires the creditor to provide a short written disclosure regarding the appraisal process for higher-priced mortgage loans, the disclosure is now provided by the CFPB, and may be classified as a label supplied by the Federal government. As a result, it is not a “collection of information” for PRA purposes; it is not, therefore, included in burden estimates below. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2), and CFPB, Final Rule, Appraisals for Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans, 78 FR 10368, 10430 (Feb. 13, 2013), and Supplemental Final Rule, Appraisals for Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans, 78 FR 78520, 78575 (Dec. 26, 2013).

    FTC staff estimates that Regulation Z's recordkeeping requirements affect approximately 530,080 entities subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, at an average annual burden of 1.25 hours per entity with .25 additional hours per entity for 5,000 entities (ability to pay), and 5 additional hours per entity for 5,000 entities (loan originators).

    Burden Totals

    Recordkeeping: 688,850 hours (613,650 + 75,200 carve-out); $13,432,575 ($11,966,175 + $1,466,400 carve-out), associated labor costs.

    Disclosures: 13,008,452 hours (11,964,361 + 1,044,091 carve-out); $553,563,761 ($508,250,213 + $45,313,548 carve-out), associated labor costs.

    Regulation Z—Disclosures—Burden Hours Disclosures 1 Setup/monitoring Respondents Average
  • burden per
  • respondent 2
  • (hours)
  • Total setup/monitoring burden
  • (hours)
  • Transaction-related Number of transactions Average
  • burden per transaction 3
  • Total
  • transaction burden
  • (hours)
  • Total burden
  • (hours)
  • Open-end credit: Initial terms 45,000 .75 33,750 20,000,000 .375 125,000 158,750 Rescission notices 4 1,500 .5 750 8,000 .25 33 783 Subsequent disclosures 10,000 .75 7,500 62,500,000 .188 195,833 203,333 Periodic statements 45,000 .75 33,750 1,750,000,000 .0938 2,735,833 2,769,583 Error resolution 45,000 .75 33,750 4,000,000 6 400,000 433,750 Credit and charge card accounts 25,000 .75 18,750 12,500,000 .375 78,125 96,875 Settlement of estate debts 45,000 .75 33,750 1,000,000 .375 6,250 40,000 Special credit card requirements 25,000 .75 18,750 12,500,000 .375 78,125 96,875 Home equity lines of credit 5 1,500 .5 750 10,000 .25 42 792 Home equity lines of credit-high cost mortgages 6 500 2 1,000 5,000 2 167 1,167 College student credit card marketing—ed. institutions 2,500 .5 1,250 250,000 .25 1,042 2,292 College student credit card marketing—card issuer reports 300 .75 225 18,000 .75 225 450 Posting and reporting of credit card agreements 25,000 .75 18,750 12,500,000 .375 78,125 96,875 Advertising 100,000 .75 75,000 300,000 .75 3,750 78,750 Sale, transfer, or assignment of mortgages 7 1,500 .5 750 1,750,000 .25 7,292 8,042 Appraiser misconduct reporting 625,000 .75 468,750 12,500,000 .375 78,125 546,875 Mortgage servicing 8 2,500 .5 1,250 500,000 .5 4,167 5,417 Loan originators 9 2,500 2 5,000 25,000 5 2,083 7,083 Closed-end credit: Credit disclosures 10 380,080 .75 285,060 163,054,320 2.25 6,108,912 6,399,597 Rescission notices 11 5,000 .5 2,500 7,500,000 1 125,000 127,500 Redisclosures 200,000 .5 100,000 1,000,000 2.25 37,500 137,500 Integrated mortgage disclosures 12 5,000 10 50,000 15,000,000 3.5 875,000 925,000 Variable rate mortgages 13 5,000 1 5,000 500,000 1.75 14,583 19,583 High cost mortgages 14 3,000 1 3,000 75,000 2 2,500 5,500 Higher priced mortgages 15 3,000 1 3,000 25,000 2 833 3,833 Reverse mortgages 16 7,500 .5 3,750 35,000 1 583 4,333 Advertising 17 248,360 .5 124,180 2,483,600 1 41,393 165,573 Private education loans 100 .5 50 50,000 1.5 1,250 1,300 Sale, transfer, or assignment of mortgages 100,000 .5 50,000 5,000,000 .25 20,833 70,833 Ability to pay/qualified mortgage 18 5,000 .75 3,750 0 0 0 3,750 Appraiser misconduct reporting 625,000 .75 468,750 12,500,000 .375 78,125 546,875 Mortgage servicing 19 5,000 1 5,000 1,000,000 2.25 37,500 42,500 Loan originators 20 2,500 2 5,000 25,000 5 2,083 7,083 Total open-end credit 4,547,692 Total closed-end credit 8,460,760 Total credit 13,008,452 1 Regulation Z requires disclosures for closed-end and open-end credit. TILA and Regulation Z now cover credit up to $54,600 plus an annual adjustment (except that real estate credit and private education loans are covered regardless of amount), generally causing an increase in transactions. In some instances noted below, market changes have reduced estimated PRA burden. In other instances noted below, changes to Regulation Z have increased estimated PRA burden. The overall effect of these competing factors, combined with the FTC sharing with the CFPB estimated PRA burden (for all but certain motor vehicle dealers) yields a net increase from the FTC's prior reported estimate for open-end credit and for closed-end credit. 2 Burden per respondent in some categories has increased compared to prior FTC estimates, due to changes in rules. 3 Burden per transaction in some categories has increased compared to prior FTC estimates, due to changes in rules. 4 Respondents for mortgages involving rescission have decreased, as have transactions. 5 Respondents for home equity lines of credit have decreased, as have transactions. 6 Regulation Z high cost mortgage rules now cover certain open-end mortgages, and a new counseling rule also applies. 7 Respondents for sale, transfer or assignment of mortgages have decreased. 8 Regulation Z has expanded various mortgage servicing requirements for prompt crediting and payoff responses. 9 Regulation Z includes new loan originator compensation requirements. 10 Respondents for credit disclosures have decreased, as have transactions. 11 Respondents for mortgages involving rescission have decreased. 12 Regulation Z now has integrated mortgage disclosure requirements for loan estimates and loan closing documents, with other requirements. 13 Respondents for variable rate mortgages have decreased but Regulation Z has expanded mortgage disclosure requirements affecting subsequent disclosures, increasing burden. 14 Regulation Z high rate/high fee mortgages are now called high cost mortgages. Respondents in high cost mortgages have decreased, but the rules cover more types of mortgages and include a counseling requirement, increasing burden. However, these types of transactions have decreased, reducing total burden. 15 Respondents for higher priced mortgages have decreased. However, Regulation Z now has certain appraisal requirements for higher-priced mortgages, increasing burden. However, these types of transactions have decreased, reducing total burden. 16 Reverse mortgage respondents and transactions have decreased. 17 Advertising respondents have increased, as have transactions, causing an increased total burden. 18 Regulation Z now includes ability to pay rules that affect setup costs. 19 Regulation Z has expanded various mortgage servicing requirements for prompt crediting and payoff responses. It also requires periodic statements (or a coupon book, for fixed-rate mortgages). 20 Regulation Z includes new loan originator compensation requirements.
    Regulation Z—Recordkeeping and Disclosures—Cost Required task Managerial Time
  • (hours)
  • Cost
  • ($56/hr.)
  • Skilled technical Time
  • (hours)
  • Cost
  • ($42/hr.)
  • Clerical Time
  • (hours)
  • Cost
  • ($17/hr.)
  • Total cost
  • ($)
  • Recordkeeping 0 $0 68,885 $2,893,170 619,965 $10,539,405 $13,432,575 Open-end credit Disclosures: Initial terms 15,875 889,000 142,875 6,000,750 0 0 6,889,750 Rescission notices 78 4,368 705 29,610 0 0 33,978 Subsequent disclosures 20,333 1,138,648 183,000 7,686,000 0 0 8,824,648 Periodic statements 276,958 15,509,648 2,492,625 104,690,250 0 0 120,199,898 Error resolution 43,375 2,429,000 390,375 16,395,750 0 0 18,824,750 Credit and charge card accounts 9,688 474,712 87,187 2,615,610 0 0 3,090,322 Settlement of estate debts 4,000 196,000 36,000 1,080,000 0 0 1,276,000 Special credit card requirements 9,688 474,712 87,187 2,615,610 0 0 3,090,322 Home equity lines of credit 458 22,442 4,126 123,780 0 0 146,222 Home equity lines of credit-high cost mortgages 117 6,552 1,050 44,100 0 0 50,662 College student credit card marketing—ed institutions 229 11,221 2,063 61,890 0 0 73,111 College student credit card marketing—card issuer reports 45 2,205 405 12,150 0 0 14,355 Posting and reporting of credit card agreements 9,688 474,712 87,187 2,615,610 0 0 3,090,322 Advertising 7,875 385,875 70,875 2,126,250 0 0 2,512,125 Sale, transfer, or assignment of mortgages 823 40,327 7,407 222,210 0 0 262,537 Appraiser misconduct reporting 54,687 2,679,663 492,188 14,765,640 0 0 17,445,303 Mortgage servicing 542 30,352 4,875 204,750 0 0 235,102 Loan originators 708 39,648 6,375 267,750 0 0 307,398 Total open-end credit 186,366,805 Closed-end credit Disclosures: Credit disclosures 639,960 35,837,760 5,759,637 241,904,754 0 0 277,742,514 Rescission notices 12,750 714,000 114,750 4,819,500 0 0 5,533,500 Redisclosures 13,750 770,000 123,750 5,197,500 0 0 5,967,500 Integrated mortgage disclosures 92,500 5,180,000 832,500 34,965,000 0 0 40,145,000 Variable rate mortgages 1,958 109,648 17,625 740,250 0 0 849,898 High cost mortgages 550 30,800 4,950 207,900 0 0 238,700 Higher priced mortgages 383 21,448 3,450 144,900 0 0 166,348 Reverse mortgages 433 24,248 3,900 163,800 0 0 188,048 Advertising 16,557 927,192 149,016 6,258,672 0 0 7,185,864 Private education loans 130 7,280 1,170 49,140 0 0 56,420 Sale, transfer, or assignment of mortgages 7,083 396,648 63,750 2,677,500 0 0 3,074,148 Ability to pay/qualified mortgage 375 21,000 3,375 141,750 0 0 162,750 Appraiser misconduct reporting 54,687 3,062,472 492,188 20,671,896 0 0 23,734,368 Mortgage servicing 4,250 238,000 38,250 1,606,500 0 0 1,844,500 Loan originators 708 39,648 6,375 267,750 0 0 307,398 Total closed-end credit 367,196,956 Total Disclosures 553,563,761 Total Recordkeeping and Disclosures 566,996,336

    Request for Comment: Pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC invites comments on: (1) Whether the disclosure requirements are necessary, including whether the information will be practically useful; (2) the accuracy of our burden estimates, including whether the methodology and assumptions used are useful; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of providing the required information to consumers.

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before June 1, 2015. Write “Regs BEMZ, PRA Comments, P084812” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

    Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment doesn't include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, don't include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information . . . which is privileged or confidential” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, don't include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c).18 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

    18 In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), CFR 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/RegsBEMZpra, by following the instructions on the web-based form. When this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

    If you file your comment on paper, write “Regs BEMZ, PRA Comments, P084812” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before June 1, 2015. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    David C. Shonka, Principal Deputy General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07552 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Solicitation of Written Comments on Draft National Pain Strategy SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) Office of Pain Policy is soliciting public comment on the draft National Pain Strategy.

    DATES:

    Comments on the draft National Pain Strategy must be received no later than 5 p.m. EST on May 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The draft National Pain Strategy is available at: http://iprcc.nih.gov/docs/DraftHHSNationalPainStrategy.pdf. Written comments sent electronically are preferred and may be addressed to [email protected] Written responses should be addressed to Linda Porter, Ph.D., NINDS/NIH, 31 Center Drive, Room 8A31, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Contact Linda Porter, Ph.D., NINDS/NIH, 31 Center Drive, Room 8A31, Bethesda, MD 20892, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The draft National Pain Strategy reflects the work of many offices across the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Defense, and Department of Veterans Affairs. The draft National Pain Strategy also reflects input from scientific and clinical experts and pain patient advocates. It includes objectives and plans related to key areas of pain and pain care, including professional education and training, public education and communication, service delivery and reimbursement, prevention and care, disparities, and population research.

    I. Background

    A core recommendation of the 2011 IOM Report: Relieving Pain in America is: “The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services should develop a comprehensive, population health-level strategy for pain prevention, treatment, management, education, reimbursement, and research that includes specific goals, actions, time frames, and resources.” The IOM report highlighted specific objectives for the strategy:

    • Describe how efforts across government agencies, including public-private partnerships, can be established, coordinated, and integrated to encourage population-focused research, education, communication, and community-wide approaches that can help reduce pain and its consequences and remediate disparities in the experience of pain among subgroups of Americans.

    • Include an agenda for developing physiological, clinical, behavioral, psychological, outcomes, and health services research and appropriate links across these domains.

    • Improve pain assessment and management programs within the service delivery and financing programs of the federal government.

    • Proceed in cooperation with the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee and the National Institutes of Health's Pain Consortium and reach out to private-sector participants as appropriate.

    • Involve the appropriate agencies and entities.

    • Include ongoing efforts to enhance public awareness about the nature of chronic pain and the role of self-care in its management.

    The Department of Health and Human Services charged the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (IPRCC) with creating a comprehensive population health-level strategy to begin addressing these objectives.

    II. Information Request

    The NINDS Office of Pain Policy, on behalf of DHHS, requests input on the draft National Pain Strategy.

    III. Potential Responders

    HHS invites input from a broad range of individuals and organizations that have interests in advancing the fundamental understanding of pain and improving pain-related treatment strategies. Some examples of these organizations include, but are not limited to the following:

    • Caregivers or health system providers (e.g., physicians, physician assistants, nurses, pharmacists) • Researchers • Foundations • Health care, professional, and educational organizations/societies • Insurers and business groups • Medicaid- and Medicare-related organizations • Patients and their advocates • Pharmaceutical Industry • Public health organizations • State and local public health agencies

    When responding, please self-identify with any of the above or other categories (include all that apply) and your name. Anonymous submissions will not be considered. Written materials submitted for consideration should not exceed 5 pages, not including appendices and supplemental documents. Responders may submit other forms of electronic materials to demonstrate or exhibit concepts of their written responses. We request that comments be identified by section, subsection, and page number of the draft so they may be addressed accordingly. All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Walter J. Koroshetz, Acting Director, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07626 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001] Biomedical Engineering Society and FDA Frontiers in Medical Devices: Innovations in Modeling and Simulation AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Public Conference

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in co-sponsorship with the Biomedical Engineering Society (BMES) is announcing a public conference entitled “Frontiers in Medical Devices: Innovations in Modeling and Simulation”. The purpose of this conference is to provide a forum to discuss strategies to effectively utilize computational modeling and simulation in the development and evaluation of medical devices.

    Date and Time: The conference will be held on May 18 through 20, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

    Location: The public conference will be held at the Marriott Inn and Conference Center, University of Maryland, 3501 University Blvd. East, Hyattsville, MD 20783.

    Contact Person: Donna R. Lochner, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 62, Rm. 3220, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-6309, [email protected]

    Registration: To register for the public conference please visit FDA's Medical Devices News, Events, Workshops, and Conferences calendar at http://www.bmes.org/meddevicesconference. There is a registration fee to attend the public conference to cover the expenses, and attendees must register in advance. The fees vary depending upon membership status in BMES, and include BMES members ($450), non-BMES members (includes 1 year BMES membership) ($600), and Government rate (BMES memberships and meals are not included) ($250). Students will be offered a discounted fee of $300 (BMES member) or $350 (non-BMES member) (includes 1 year BMES membership). A full listing of the registration fees can be found on the Web site listed. Although the facilities are spacious, registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis.

    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Betse Lyons at [email protected] or 301-459-1999, 8201 Corporate Drive, Suite 1125, Landover, MD 20785-2224, FAX: 301-459-2444, no later than May 4, 2015.

    To register for the public conference, please visit BMES Frontiers in Medical Devices registration page at http://bmes.org/meddevicesregistration. Those without Internet access should contact Betse Lyons at 301-459-1999 to register.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) believes that computer modeling and simulation (M&S) has the potential to substantially augment traditional models used to evaluate medical devices; i.e., animal, bench, and human models, and to accelerate and streamline the total product life cycle of a medical device. The use of computer models to simulate multiple use conditions and to visualize and display complex processes and data can revolutionize the way medical outcomes and medical devices are understood. Non-proprietary computer models could benchmark device performance, yet lack of access to biomedical data to construct the models and rigorous methods to validate the models limit their credibility and use. To foster good science for M&S in the medical device community, CDRH needs to leverage the expertise in industry and academia to advance M&S for regulatory uses.

    II. Topics for Discussion at the Public Workshop

    A large number of issues will be discussed at the conference with the overall theme being the application of modeling and simulation for medical devices at different stages in the total product life cycle. Topics include, but are not limited to the following:

    • Model foundations for device design ideation;

    • concept development and design optimization;

    • modeling for robust design;

    • design verification and validation;

    • patient specific design;

    • integration of modeling with clinical studies;

    • modeling and device commercialization.

    This public workshop may also form the basis for future discussions related to computer modeling and simulation that could benefit U.S. public health.

    Dated: March 27, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07551 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute Of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; Mentoring Programs for HIV/AIDS Researchers 2.

    Date: March 30, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Aileen Schulte, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6140, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 301-443-1225, [email protected]

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 27, 2015. Carolyn A. Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07507 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0481] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; New Animal Drugs for Investigational Uses AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 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 reporting and recordkeeping requirements for “New Animal Drugs for Investigational Uses”.

    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, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA'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.

    New Animal Drugs for Investigational Uses—21 CFR Part 511 (OMB Control Number 0910-0117)—(Extension)

    FDA has the authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) to approve new animal drugs. Section 512(j) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(j)), authorizes FDA to issue regulations relating to the investigational use of new animal drugs. The regulations setting forth the conditions for investigational use of new animal drugs have been codified at 21 CFR part 511. If the new animal drug is only for tests in vitro or in laboratory research animals, the person distributing the new animal drug must maintain records showing the name and post office address of the expert or expert organization to whom it is shipped and the date, quantity, and batch or code mark of each shipment and delivery for a period of 2 years after such shipment or delivery. Before shipping a new animal drug for clinical investigations in animals, a sponsor must submit to FDA a Notice of Claimed Investigational Exemption (NCIE). The NCIE must contain, among other things, the following specific information: (1) Identity of the new animal drug, (2) labeling, (3) statement of compliance of any non-clinical laboratory studies with good laboratory practices, (4) name and address of each clinical investigator, (5) the approximate number of animals to be treated or amount of new animal drug(s) to be shipped, and (6) information regarding the use of edible tissues from investigational animals. Part 511 also requires that records be established and maintained to document the distribution and use of the investigational new animal drug to assure that its use is safe and that the distribution is controlled to prevent potential abuse. The Agency uses these required records under its Bio-Research Monitoring Program to monitor the validity of the studies submitted to FDA to support new animal drug approval and to assure that proper use of the drug is maintained by the investigator.

    Investigational new animal drugs are used primarily by drug industry firms, academic institutions, and the government. Investigators may include individuals from these entities, as well as research firms and members of the medical professions. Respondents to this collection of information are the persons who use new animal drugs for investigational purposes.

    FDA estimates the burden of this information collection as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 21 CFR Section Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of responses per respondent Total annual responses Average burden per response Total hours
    511.1(b)(4) 263 5.30 1,395 1 1,395 511.1(b)(5) 263 .26 69 8 552 511.1(b)(6) 263 .01 2 1 2 511.1(b)(8)(ii) 263 .06 15 2 30 511.1(b)(9) 263 .06 15 8 120 Total 2,099 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Table 2—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden 1 21 CFR Section Number of recordkeepers Number of records per recordkeeper Total annual records Average burden per recordkeeping Total hours 511.1(a)(3) 263 2.07 545 1 545 511.1(b)(3) 263 5.30 1,395 1 1,395 511.1(b)(7)(ii) 263 5.30 1,395 3.5 4,882.5 511.1(b)(8)(i) 263 5.30 1,395 3.5 4,882.5 Total 11,705 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    The estimate of the time required for reporting requirements, record preparation, and maintenance for this collection of information is based on informal Agency communication with industry. Based on the number of sponsors subject to animal drug user fees, FDA estimates that there are 263 respondents. We use this estimate consistently throughout the table and calculate the “annual frequency per respondent” by dividing the total annual responses by number of respondents. Additional information needed to make a final calculation of the total burden hours (i.e., the number of respondents, the number of recordkeepers, the number of NCIEs received, etc.) is derived from Agency records.

    Dated: March 27, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07539 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    The meeting announced below concerns Evaluation of a Stepped Care Approach for Perinatal Depression Treatment in Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics, DP15-005, initial review.

    SUMMARY:

    This document corrects a notice that was published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2015 Volume 80, Number 48, page 13012. The time and date should read as follows:

    Time and Date: 11:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., April 1, 2015 (Closed).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: M. Chris Langub, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE., Mailstop F46, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-3585, [email protected].

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07545 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    The meeting announced below concerns Using Longitudinal Data to Characterize the Natural History of Fragile X Syndrome to Improve Services and Outcomes, DD15-003, initial review.

    SUMMARY:

    This document corrects a notice that was published in the Federal Register on March 25, 2015 Volume 80, Number 57, page 15798. The time and date should read as follows:

    Time and Date: 11:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., April 15, 2015 (Closed).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    M. Chris Langub, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE., Mailstop F46, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-3585, [email protected]

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07544 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.

    DATES:

    Comments on this Information Collection Request must be received no later than June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or mail the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Room 10C-03, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email [email protected] or call the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at (301) 443-1984.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.

    Information Collection Request Title: Faculty Loan Repayment Program OMB No. 0915-0150, Revision.

    Abstract: Under the HRSA Faculty Loan Repayment Program, degree-trained health professionals from disadvantaged health backgrounds may enter into a contract under which the Department of Health and Human Services will make payments on eligible educational loans in exchange for a minimum of 2 years of service as a full-time or part-time faculty member of an accredited health professions college or university.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The Faculty Loan Repayment Program needs to collect data to determine an applicant's eligibility for the program. Information is collected from the applicants and/or the educational institutions which includes general applicant data, applicant educational loan history, employment status, and information regarding the educational institution which employs the applicant.

    Likely Respondents: Faculty Loan Repayment Program applicants and institutions providing employment to the applicants.

    Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this Information Collection Request are summarized in the table below.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Form name Number of respondents Number of responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Average burden per response
  • (in hours)
  • Total
  • burden hours
  • Eligible Applications 111 1 111 1 111 Institution/Loan Repayment Employment Form * 111 * 1 111 1 111 Authorization to Release Information Form 111 1 111 .25 27.83 Total 222 249.83 * Respondent for this form is the institution for the applicant.

    HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    Jackie Painter, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07577 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request Electronic Prior Approval Submission System (ePASS) (NHLBI) SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2014 (79 FR 69865), and allowed 60-days for public comment. One public comment was received. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health, may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Direct Comments to OMB: Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs, [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-6974, Attention: NIH Desk Officer.

    DATES:

    Comment Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30-days of the date of this publication.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Ms. Ryan Lombardi, 6701 Rockledge, Office of Grants Management, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Dr, MSC 7926, Bethesda, MD 20892-7926, or call non-toll-free number 301-435-0166, or Email your request, including your address to [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    Proposed Collection: Electronic Prior Approval Submission System (ePASS), 0925—New, National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: The purpose and use of the information collection for this project is to collect and track certain requests (such as budget modifications or undertaking particular activities) from NIH grantees in an electronic format. This new electronic system, ePASS (electronic Prior Approval Submission System), will enable grantees to have a standard way to submit requests for their projects per NIH policy. The grantee will initiate a request for a certain action as required by NIH policy: Use of unobligated balances/carryover, change of PI, change of effort, Training Grant (NRSA) waivers, significant rebudgeting, 2nd and 3rd no cost extensions, and change of scope. These are all prior approvals as required by the NIH Grants Policy, and need to be reviewed and approved by the NHLBI. ePASS will provide a template to ensure that all specific points are addressed and documented in the official grant file. All information is submitted via the internet, tracked in ePASS, and the documentation will automatically be forwarded to the official grant file. The system will ensure that individuals authorized by the grantee are submitting requests and that the appropriate NIH staff is receiving the requests. The requests will be template driven so that the grantee is including the minimally required information, thus eliminating the usual back and forth to obtain missing information. Forms will have automatic fill-in capability that will reduce typos in grant numbers and PI names, further reducing approval time. Reminders will be sent to NIH staff within ePASS based on roles to ensure timely responses to the grantee. The system will facilitate email communication with applicants by automatic notifications when applications are received and when NIH has made a determination regarding a request (approval issued or request denied with explanation for denial).

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 470.

    Estimates of Hour Burden Type of respondent Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total
  • annual hour
  • burden
  • NHLBI Grantees 940 1 30/60 470 Totals 940 470
    Dated: March 17, 2015. Lynn Susulske, NHLBI Project Clearance Liaison, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07623 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Subcommittee on Procedures Review, Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or Advisory Board), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting for the aforementioned subcommittee:

    Time and Date: 11:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, April 28, 2015.

    Place: Audio Conference Call via FTS Conferencing.

    Status: Open to the public. The public is welcome to submit written comments in advance of the meeting, to the contact person below. Written comments received in advance of the meeting will be included in the official record of the meeting. The public is also welcome to listen to the meeting by joining the teleconference at the USA toll-free, dial-in number, 1-866-659-0537 and the passcode is 9933701.

    Background: The ABRWH was established under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 to advise the President on a variety of policy and technical functions required to implement and effectively manage the compensation program. Key functions of the ABRWH include providing advice on the development of probability of causation guidelines that have been promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as a final rule; advice on methods of dose reconstruction which have also been promulgated by HHS as a final rule; advice on the scientific validity and quality of dose estimation and reconstruction efforts being performed for purposes of the compensation program; and advice on petitions to add classes of workers to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC).

    In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the Advisory Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, and will expire on August 3, 2015.

    Purpose: The ABRWH is charged with (a) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the development of guidelines under Executive Order 13179; (b) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the scientific validity and quality of dose reconstruction efforts performed for this program; and (c) upon request by the Secretary, HHS, providing advice to the Secretary on whether there is a class of employees at any Department of Energy facility who were exposed to radiation but for whom it is not feasible to estimate their radiation dose, and on whether there is a reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered the health of members of this class. The Subcommittee on Procedures Review was established to aid the ABRWH in carrying out its duty to advise the Secretary, HHS, on dose reconstructions. The Subcommittee on Procedures Review is responsible for overseeing, tracking, and participating in the reviews of all procedures used in the dose reconstruction process by the NIOSH Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) and its dose reconstruction contractor (Oak Ridge Associated Universities—ORAU).

    Matters for Discussion: The agenda for the Subcommittee meeting includes: discussion of procedures in the following ORAU and DCAS technical documents: Procedures for reconstructing dose associated with potential skin contamination, ORAU Team Technical Information Bulletin (OTIB) 0034 (“Internal Dose Coworker Data for X-10”), OTIB 0054 (“Fission and Activation Product Assignment for Internal Dose-Related Gross Beta and Gross Gamma Analyses”), OTIB 0082 (“Dose Reconstruction Method for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia”), Update on Review of ORAU Team Report 0053 (“Stratified Co-Worker Sets”); and a continuation of the comment-resolution process for other dose reconstruction procedures under review by the Subcommittee.

    The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Contact Person For More Information: Theodore Katz, Designated Federal Officer, NIOSH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E-20, Atlanta Georgia 30333, Telephone (513) 533-6800, Toll Free 1(800)CDC-INFO, Email [email protected].

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07542 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:

    Time and Date: 8:30 a.m.-3:00 p.m., EDT, April 23, 2015.

    Place: CDC, Building 19, Auditorium B3, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30333.

    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space and phone lines available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 50 people. Advance registration for in-person participation is required by April 16, 2015. The public is welcome to participate during the public comment period, which is tentatively scheduled from 2:35 p.m. to 2:40 p.m. This meeting will also be available by teleconference. Please dial (877) 930-8819 and enter code 1579739.

    Web links: Windows Media: http://wm.onlinevideoservice.com/CDC1.

    Flash: http://www.onlinevideoservice.com/clients/CDC/?mount=CDC3.

    If you are unable to connect using the link, copy and paste the link into your web browser. For technical support please call: (404) 639-3737.

    Purpose: The Advisory Committee to the Director, CDC, shall advise the Secretary, HHS, and the Director, CDC, on policy and broad strategies that will enable CDC to fulfill its mission of protecting health through health promotion, prevention, and preparedness. The committee recommends ways to prioritize CDC's activities, improve results, and address health disparities. It also provides guidance to help CDC work more effectively with its various private and public sector constituents to make health protection a practical reality.

    Matters for Discussion: The Advisory Committee to the Director will receive updates from the State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Subcommittee; the Health Disparities Subcommittee, the Global Workgroup, the Internal and External Laboratory Safety Workgroups, and the Public Health—Health Care Collaboration Workgroup, the Ebola response, global health security, recent viral outbreaks, antimicrobial resistance, as well as an update from the CDC Director.

    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Contact Person for More Information: Carmen Villar, MSW, Designated Federal Officer, ACD, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., M/S D-14, Atlanta, Georgia 30333. Telephone (404) 639-7158, Email: [email protected] The deadline to register for in-person attendance at this meeting is April 16, 2015. To register, please send an email to [email protected]

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
    [FR Doc. 2015-07543 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifiers: CMS-10549] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, and to allow a second opportunity for public comment on the notice. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by May 4, 2015:

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806 OR, Email: OIRA_ [email protected].

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: New collection (Request for a new OMB control number); Title of Information Collection: Generic Clearance for Questionnaire Testing and Methodological Research for the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS); Use: The purpose of this OMB clearance package is to clear a Generic Clearance to support an effort to evaluate the operations and content of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS). The MCBS is a continuous, multipurpose survey of a nationally representative sample of aged, disabled, and institutionalized Medicare beneficiaries. The MCBS, which is sponsored by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), is the only comprehensive source of information on the health status, health care use and expenditures, health insurance coverage, and socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the entire spectrum of Medicare beneficiaries.

    The core of the MCBS is a series of interviews with a stratified random sample of the Medicare population, including aged and disabled enrollees, residing in the community or in institutions. Questions are asked about enrollees' patterns of health care use, charges, insurance coverage, and payments over time. Respondents are asked about their sources of health care coverage and payment, their demographic characteristics, their health and work history, and their family living circumstances. In addition to collecting information through the core questionnaire, the MCBS collects information on special topics through supplements. For example, questions are asked about enrollees' income and assets, access to health care, health and functional status and satisfaction with care. Special supplements also focus on emerging trends in health care. Form Number: CMS-10549 (OMB control number 0938-New); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Individuals or Households; Number of Respondents: 1,500; Total Annual Responses: 1,500; Total Annual Hours: 1,117. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact William Long at 410-786-7927.)

    Dated: March 26, 2015. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07322 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Notice of Availability: Test Tools and Test Procedures Approved by the National Coordinator for the ONC HIT Certification Program AGENCY:

    Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the availability of test tools and test procedures approved by the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (the National Coordinator) for the testing of EHR technology to two 2014 Edition Release 2 EHR certification criteria under the ONC HIT Certification Program. The approved test tools and test procedures for the “optional—transitions of care” certification criterion (§ 170.314(b)(8)) and the revised “view, download, and transmit to 3rd party” certification criterion (§ 170.314(e)(1)) are identified on the ONC Web site at: http://healthit.gov/policy-researchers-implementers/testing-and-test-methods. The test tools and test procedures for all the other 2014 Edition Release 2 EHR certification criteria were previously approved by the National Coordinator.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alicia Morton, Director, Office of Certification, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, 202-549-7851.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On January 7, 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a final rule establishing a permanent certification program for the purposes of testing and certifying health information technology (“Establishment of the Permanent Certification Program for Health Information Technology,” 76 FR 1262) (Permanent Certification Program final rule). The permanent certification program was renamed the “ONC HIT Certification Program” in a final rule published on September 4, 2012 (77 FR 54163) (“2014 Edition EHR Certification Criteria final rule”). In the preamble of the Permanent Certification Program final rule, we stated that when the National Coordinator had approved test tools and test procedures for certification criteria adopted by the Secretary ONC would publish a notice of availability in the Federal Register and identify the approved test tools and test procedures on the ONC Web site.

    In the 2014 Edition Release 2 EHR Certification Criteria final rule the Secretary adopted additional and revised certification criteria as part of the 2014 Edition EHR certification criteria (79 FR 54430). The National Coordinator has approved test tools and test procedures for testing EHR technology for two 2014 Edition Release 2 EHR certification criteria under the ONC HIT Certification Program. These approved test tools and test procedures for the “optional—transitions of care” certification criterion (§ 170.314(b)(8)) and the revised “view, download, and transmit to 3rd party” certification criterion (§ 170.314(e)(1)) are identified on the ONC Web site at: http://healthit.gov/policy-researchers-implementers/testing-and-test-methods. The test tools and test procedures for all the other 2014 Edition Release 2 EHR certification criteria were previously approved by the National Coordinator (80 FR 4577) and are available for review at the Web site listed above.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 300jj-11.

    Dated: March 20, 2015. Lisa Lewis, Acting National Coordinator for Health Information Technology
    [FR Doc. 2015-07572 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 4150-45-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis: Notice of Charter Renewal

    This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis, Department of Health and Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period through March 15, 2017.

    For information, contact Hazel Dean, Sc.D., M.P.H., Designated Federal Officer, Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis, Department of Health and Human Services, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E-10, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone 404/639-8000 or fax 404/639-8600.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07541 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-D-0045] Abuse-Deterrent Opioids—Evaluation and Labeling; 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 “Abuse-Deterrent Opioids—Evaluation and Labeling”. This guidance explains FDA's current thinking about the studies that should be conducted to demonstrate that a given formulation has abuse-deterrent properties. This guidance also makes recommendations about how those studies should be performed and evaluated, and discusses how to describe those studies and their implications in product labeling. It is intended to assist sponsors who wish to develop opioid drug products with potentially abuse-deterrent properties and is not intended to apply to products that are not opioids or opioid products that do not have the potential for abuse.

    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 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the 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:

    Brutrinia D. Cain, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-4633, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Abuse-Deterrent Opioids—Evaluation and Labeling.” Prescription opioid products are an important component of modern pain management. However, abuse and misuse of these products have created a serious and growing public health problem. One potentially important step towards the goal of creating safer opioid analgesics has been the development of opioids that are formulated with some properties intended to deter abuse. FDA considers development of these products a high public health priority.

    The guidance is intended to provide industry with a framework for evaluating and labeling abuse-deterrent opioid products. The guidance discusses how the potentially abuse-deterrent properties of an opioid analgesic formulated to deter abuse should be studied, specifically addressing in vitro studies, pharmacokinetic studies, clinical abuse potential studies, and postmarket studies. The guidance also describes the types of information that may be suitable for inclusion in labeling.

    Providing a clear framework for the evaluation and labeling of the abuse-deterrent properties of opioid analgesics intended to deter abuse should help to incentivize the development of safer, less abusable opioid analgesics, and should also facilitate the dissemination of fair and accurate information regarding such products.

    In the Federal Register of January 14, 2013 (78 FR 2676), FDA announced the availability of a draft version of this guidance and provided interested parties an opportunity to submit comments. The Agency has carefully reviewed and considered the comments it received in developing this final version of the guidance. The Agency has made revisions to the guidance as it deemed appropriate.

    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 the evaluation and labeling of abuse-deterrent opioids. 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. 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.

    III. 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 27, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07562 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0005] Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Family Unity Benefits, Form I-817; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    DHS, USCIS invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e. the time, effort, and resources used by the respondents to respond), the estimated cost to the respondent, and the actual information collection instruments.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0005 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2009-0021. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at www.regulations.gov under e-Docket ID number USCIS-2009-0021;

    (2) Email. Submit comments to [email protected];

    (3) Mail. Submit written comments to DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    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 (comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments: You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2009-0021 in the search box. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

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

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Family Unity Benefits.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-817; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households: The information collected will be used to determine whether the applicant meets the eligibility requirements for benefits under 8 CFR 236.14 and 245a.33.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-817 is approximately 2,557 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2 hours per response; and the estimated number of respondents providing biometrics is 2,557 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.17 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 8,106 hours.

    Dated: March 27, 2015. Laura Dawkins, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07506 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5843-N-04] Implementation of the Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; New System of Records, the Housing Search Process for Racial and Ethnic Minorities Evaluation Data Files AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    New system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department's Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) is proposing to create a new system of records, the “Housing Search Process for Racial and Ethnic Minorities Evaluation Data Files.” The Department's Office of PD&R is responsible for maintaining current information on housing needs, market conditions and existing programs, as well as conducting research on priority housing and community development issues.

    The principal purpose of the evaluation of the Housing Search Process for Racial and Ethnic Minorities is to: Help guide the Department's research toward a more comprehensive understanding of the rental housing search processes for individual households; Make informed decisions on the development of more effective enforcement strategies to combat discriminatory practices; Identify ways to expand housing opportunities for racial and ethnic minorities. Further, HUD's Office of Housing Counseling for rental housing assistance, and the Office of Housing Choice Vouchers, among others will leverage the outcome study results for policy development and best practices aimed to “build inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination”, and to identify and correct barriers that racial and ethnic minorities may experiences in the rental housing market. Finally, this study will allow the Department to leverage its own regular data collection efforts, like the American Housing Survey (AHS), to document the complexities of the housing search process at scale nationwide. A more detailed description of this system is contained in the “Purpose” caption of this system of records notice.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: The notice will be effective May 4, 2015, unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination.

    Comments Due Date: May 4, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communication should refer to the above docket number and title. A copy of each communication submitted will be available for public inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays at the above address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Donna Robinson-Staton, Chief Privacy Officer, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410 (Attention: Capitol View Building, 4th Floor), telephone number: (202) 402-8073. [The above telephone number is not a toll free number.] A telecommunications device for hearing- and speech-impaired persons (TTY) is available by calling the Federal Information Relay Service's toll-free telephone number (800) 877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This system of records will be operated by HUD's Office of PD&R and will include personally identifiable information (PII) of participants in the Housing Search Process for Racial and Ethnic Minorities that will be retrieved from the system by a name or unique identifier. The new system of records will encompass information on program and services administered by the Department. Publication of this notice allows the Department to satisfy its reporting requirement and keep an up-to-date accounting of its system of records publications. The new system of records will incorporate Federal privacy requirements and the Department's policy requirements. The Privacy Act provides individuals with certain safeguards against an invasion of personal privacy by requiring Federal agencies to protect records contained in an agency system of records from unauthorized disclosure, by ensuring that information is current and collected only for its intended use, and by providing adequate safeguards to prevent misuse of such information. Additionally, this notice demonstrates the Department's focus on industry best practices to protect the personal privacy of the individuals covered by this system of records notice.

    This notice states the name and location of the record system, the authority for and manner of its operations, the categories of individuals that it covers, the type of records that it contains, the sources of the information for the records, the routine uses made of the records and the type of exemptions in place for the records. In addition, this notice includes the business addresses of Department officials' who will inform interested persons of the procedures whereby they may gain access to and/or request amendments to records pertaining to them.

    This publication does meet the SORN threshold requirements pursuant to the Privacy Act and OMB Circular A-130, and a report was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the House Committee on Government Reform as instructed by Paragraph 4c of Appendix l to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agencies Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” July 25, 1994 (59 FR 37914).

    Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552a; 88 Stat. 1896; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    Dated: March 27, 2015. Rafael C. Diaz, Chief Information Officer. SYSTEM OF RECORDS NO.:

    PD&R/RRE.04

    SYSTEM NAME:

    Housing Search Process for Racial and Ethnic Minorities Evaluation Data Files.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20140; The Urban Institute, 2100 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20037; The SSRS, 53 West Baltimore Pike Media, PA 19063.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    The categories of individuals covered by the system will include records on participants in the Housing Search Process for Racial and Ethnic Minorities who have agreed to be part of the outcome study.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    The categories of records in the system will include the participants name, home address, telephone number, and personal email address.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    The authority for the collection of records, and the maintenance of this system is authorized by Sections 501-502 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-609), 12 U.S.C. 1701z-1, 1701z-2 and Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 3601.)

    PURPOSE(S):

    The purpose of the evaluation of the Housing Search Process for Racial and Ethnic Minorities is to allow the Department to address Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), which prohibits discrimination in the rental market based on race and/or ethnicity and charges HUD to study the nature and extent of these discriminations. It is suspected that the differences between the rental housing search process employed by racial and/or ethnic minorities and other populations may have significant consequences for the housing opportunities available to minority households and the strategies needed to combat racial and ethnic discrimination. HUD fulfills its obligations under this study by using multiple methods, including its flagship paired-testing studies to leverage search criteria gained from individuals during their rental housing search process. In the past, vigorous experiments have shown that people of different racial and/or ethnic groups are treated differently by landlords and real estate agents. This study will help the Department gain an understanding of the racial and ethnic differences experienced by individuals during the housing search process and will identify the important factors needed to address a common critique under the existing studies. National HUD-funded studies of housing discrimination routinely measure their results assuming a common search pattern defined by the testing protocols executed by both the minority and the nonminority testers. As a result, the Department is unable to understand whether these stages of the process capture the audit studies mapped to what people actually do when they search for rental housing. For example, in a housing search, an individual interacts with a landlord in the way that the audit studies capture. However, the interaction may not come about in the manner assumed by an audit study methodology (i.e. finding a listing on the internet or in the newspaper). The Department is also unaware of how the searcher decided to inquire about the unit, what factors shaped that decision, how the searcher interprets the interaction with the landlord, and how this interaction shapes the searcher's subsequent housing search decisions. In other words, though the Department may know a great deal about what happens in terms of race and ethnicity at the point of the interaction between a prospective tenant and landlord, it knows very little about what precedes or follows that interaction, and how these factors ultimately affect housing outcomes.

    The research team plans to implement two original data collection activities designed specifically to begin fleshing out a more detailed conceptual framework for the housing search process by: (1) Exploring dimensions completely absent in existing survey data, (2) gathering information at different time points during active housing searches—a technique yet untested—and (3) engaging only respondents who are currently searching or have moved in the past two months to improve upon the often nebulous reporting windows of the existing survey data. For example, the AHS asks respondents to report on their search behavior and priorities up to 24 months after the search is complete. On the other hand, even though the Chicago Area Study (CAS), provides the most detailed information about search processes, it still asks respondents to recall searches happening as much as 10 years after the search.

    There are two exploratory data collection activities:

    1. The Housing Search Study (HSS) will consist of 525 half-hour, one-time phone cognitive testing interviews with diverse respondents who have moved into a rental property within the last two months. In addition, the HSS will follow 175 people actively engaged in a search for a rental property over a period of up to 28 days. The number of cognitive testing interviews for current searchers will depend on the status of each respondent's housing search. All respondents will participate in an initial interview at time 1 (to last 30 minutes) and will receive a follow-up call two weekends later at time 2 (to last 20 minutes). Only respondents who are still actively searching at time 2 will receive a follow-up call at time 3 (also to last 20 minutes). Cognitive tests with current searchers are designed to map the iterative and dynamic qualities of housing search.

    2. In-depth interviews will consist of one-time, 1-hour long in-person conversations with 48 respondents identified through the first two original data collection efforts to explore the narratives surrounding the most salient racial/ethnic differences in the housing search process and outcomes that emerge from early analyses of data from the cognitive tests.

    The goal of the original data collection activities is not to estimate the prevalence of racial and/or ethnic differences in the housing search, but rather to develop a nuanced understanding of the process and identify potential drivers of racial and/or ethnic differences in order to inform the design of future fair-housing testing methodologies for potential points of intervention for HUD programs. All original data collection activities will be conducted in the Washington DC metropolitan area. Those who agree to participate in the study will have an opportunity to receive up to 200 dollars, depending on their level of participation in the study. In-depth interview respondents will be recruited from those who participate in the shorter, earlier interviews. The research team will analyze existing datasets including the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), the AHS, and the CAS. This analysis will leverage these surveys' strong sampling design to provide estimates of prevalence as well as statistically valid tests of racial and/or ethnic differences in the population for the very limited number of housing search related variables.

    PURPOSE OF THE DATA COLLECTION:

    This submission requests approval for original data collection tasks 1 and 2—the HSS and the in-depth interviews will be merged with other planned analyses of secondary data to provide large-scale, nuanced information to address the task order research questions as articulated in the RFP:

    • What are the primary ways that racial and ethnic minorities search for rental housing?

    • To what extent are these patterns different from the housing search patterns of whites?

    • What parts of these search patterns would be easy to document?

    • What parts would be hard to document?

    • What can be clearly demonstrated or inferred about the consequences of these differences for relative housing opportunities?

    • What can be clearly demonstrated or inferred about the consequences of these differences about the ability to test for enforcement purposes?

    • What can be clearly demonstrated or inferred about the consequences of these differences about appropriate educational programs?

    • What are the most promising areas for further research, both on substantive importance grounds and feasibility of available research strategies?

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside HUD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    1. To Urban Institute staff to track study participants and locate participants for a future follow-up interview. Staff may also use the data files to match with other datasets for tracking purposes, such as change of address and credit bureau databases;

    2. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons to the extent that such disclosures are compatible with the purpose for which the records in this system were collected, as set forth by Appendix I 1 —HUD's Library of Routine Uses published in the Federal Register (July 17, 2012, at 77 FR 41996); and

    1http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=append1.pdf.

    3. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: a) HUD suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in a system of records has been compromised; b) HUD has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of systems or programs (whether maintained by HUD or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with HUD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm for purposes of facilitating responses and remediation efforts in the event of a data breach.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE:

    All data collected will be input and stored in a secure database. Hard-copy materials containing respondent identifying information will be locked up when not in use. PII will be accessible to the research team only at the Urban Institute and SSRS system locations. PII will be accessible by the Urban Institute and the file will not be shared or accessed by HUD. All hard-copy materials, including completed forms and electronic records on transportable media, will be kept in locked cabinets when not in use. In addition, data on transportable media will be encrypted. Records with PII will not be printed. Records and the file will be destroyed by the Urban Institute at the completion of the study.

    RETRIEVABILITY:

    Records within the contact database will be retrieved by name, home address, telephone number, and personal email address.

    RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

    The retention and disposal procedures will be in keeping with HUD's records management statutory obligations as described in 44 U.S.C. 3101 and 3303. Records will be maintained for a period not to exceed five years. All PII associated with the project will be destroyed by Urban Institute and their subcontractors or otherwise rendered irrecoverable per NIST Special Publication 800-88 “Guidelines for Media Sanitization” (September 2006) at the end of the contract.

    At the end of the contract, paper-based records that do not need to be retained will be shredded and the remainder of the files will be shredded after the three-year retention period required in the contract.

    SAFEGUARDS:

    Access to any server, security, storage, backup, and infrastructure equipment is monitored, restricted to only those with a need-to-have system access, including being secured by administrative password and authentication methods. All system users are required to sign a confidentiality pledge to abide by corporate policies and by HUD policies. There are no paper-based records associated with this study.

    SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:

    Carol Star, Director, Division of Program Evaluation, Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Telephone Number (202) 402-6139.

    NOTIFICATION AND RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    For information, assistance, or inquiries about the existence of records, contact Donna Robinson-Staton, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4156, Washington, DC 20410 (Attention: Capitol View Building, 4th Floor), telephone number: (202) 402-8073. Verification of your identity must include original signature and be notarized. Written request must include the full name, Social Security Number, date of birth, current address, and telephone number of the individual making the request.

    CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

    The Department's rules for contesting contents of records and appealing initial denials appear in 24 CFR, Part 16. Additional assistance may be obtained by contacting: Donna Robinson-Staton, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410 (Attention: Capitol View Building, 4th Floor), telephone number: (202) 402-8073; or the HUD Departmental Privacy Appeals Officers, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington DC 20410.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    The individual study participants in the surveys will be recruited through a variety of neighborhood-level organizations, requesting voluntary participation. The data will be gathered from and supplied by a limited number of in-depth interviews of some members of the testing group, and the study participants: including recent movers and current housing searchers in large scale cognitive testing.

    The varied methods, designed to reach out to diverse populations, include:

    • Media and advertising—A display of promotional posters about the study on buses in District of Columbia, flyers, emails, and Facebook posting.

    • Online presence—Web page hosted for the study that explains its purpose, incentives, the organization implementing the study, and that provides instructions for participation.

    • Community partnerships—A partnership to be establish with a variety of different private and nonprofit organizations, including rental assistance housing counseling agencies, community organizations, and businesses to help promote the study among their constituents.

    • Snowball sampling—Referrals of respondents of cognitive testing who may be eligible.

    SYSTEMS EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT:

    None.

    [FR Doc. 2015-07610 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5843-N-05] Implementation of the Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; New System of Records, Rent Reform Demonstration AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    New System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department's Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) is proposing to create a new system of records (SORN), the “Rent Reform Demonstration.” The Department's Office of PD&R is responsible for maintaining current information on housing needs, market conditions and existing programs, as well as conducting research on priority housing and community development issues. The Rent Reform Demonstration is a randomized controlled experiment designed to test, at the national level an evaluation of alternative solutions designed to improve the current rent subsidy model. The demonstration is being implemented at several “Moving to Work” (MTW) public housing agencies (PHAs) in different parts of the country. Pursuant to the federal law authorizing MTW, Congress gave local public housing agencies the opportunity to design and test innovative policies to improve the current rent subsidy system. All MTW public housing agencies have the authority to institute new policies system-wide. The Rent Reform Demonstration gives participating MTW public housing agencies the opportunity to adopt new policies on a trial basis and to learn from a careful evaluation whether they achieve benefits for tenants and the housing agency.

    The overall objective of the Rent Reform Demonstration is to compare the current rent structure of the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program to the alternate rent structure's to examine the impact on household employment, earnings, hardship, health, and homelessness; gain knowledge and comprehension on the impact that the alternative rent system has on HCV program families; and to identify ways to simplify and make less expensive the PHA's administrative processes. A more detailed description of the new system of records is outlined in the “Purpose” caption of this system of records notice.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: The notice will be effective May 4, 2015, unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination.

    Comments Due Date: May 4, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communication should refer to the above docket number and title. A copy of each communication submitted will be available for public inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays at the above address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Donna Robinson-Staton, Chief Privacy Officer, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410 (Attention: Capitol View Building, 4th Floor), telephone number: (202) 402-8073. [The above telephone number is not a toll free number.] A telecommunications device for hearing-and speech-impaired persons (TTY) is available by calling the Federal Information Relay Service's toll-free telephone number (800) 877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This system of records will be operated by HUD's Office of PD&R and will include personally identifiable information (PII) pertaining to participants of the Rent Reform Demonstration that will be retrieved from the system by a name or unique identifier. The new system of records will encompass information on program and services administered by the Department. Publication of this notice allows the Department to satisfy its reporting requirement and keep an up-to-date accounting of its system of records publications. The new system of records will incorporate Federal privacy requirements and Department's policy requirements. The Privacy Act provides individuals with certain safeguards against an invasion of personal privacy by requiring Federal agencies to protect records contained in an agency system of records from unauthorized disclosure, by ensuring that information is current and collected only for its intended use, and by providing adequate safeguards to prevent misuse of such information. Additionally, this notice demonstrates the Department's focus on industry best practices to protect the personal privacy of the individuals covered by this system of records notice.

    This notice states the name and location of the record system, the authority for and manner of its operations, the categories of individuals that it covers, the type of records that it contains, the sources of the information for the records, the routine uses made of the records and the type of exemptions in place for the records. In addition, this notice includes the business addresses of Department officials' who will inform interested persons of the procedures whereby they may gain access to and/or request amendments to records pertaining to them.

    This publication does meet the SORN threshold requirements pursuant to the Privacy Act and OMB Circular A-130, and a report was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the House Committee on Government Reform as instructed by Paragraph 4c of Appendix l to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agencies Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” July 25, 1994 (59 FR 37914).

    Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552a; 88 Stat. 1896; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    Dated: March 27, 2015. Rafael C. Diaz, Chief Information Officer. SYSTEM OF RECORDS NO.:

    PD&R/RRE.05

    SYSTEM NAME:

    Rent Reform Demonstration.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20140; MDRC, 16 East 34 Street, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10016 and MDRC, 475 14th Street, Suite 750, Oakland, CA 94612-1900; eVault, 14944 Pony Express Road, Bluffdale, Utah 84065; Branch Associates, Inc., 1628 JFK Boulevard, Suite 800, 8 Penn Center, Philadelphia, PA 19103; Bronner Group, 120 N La Salle Street, Room 1300, Chicago, IL 60602; Quadel Consulting Corporation, 1200 G Street NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005; Urban Institute, 2100 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20037; and Ingrid Gould Ellen, New York University, Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, 295 Lafayette Street, New York, NY 10012. The storage and archival facility for the Rent Reform Demonstration data files is located at Datacenter/Windstream, 15 Shattuck Road Andover, MA 01810.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    The categories of individuals covered by this system will include all household members enrolled in the Rent Reform Demonstration.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    The categories of records in the system will include the participants name, home address, telephone numbers, personal email address, Social Security Number, date of birth, marital status, citizenship status, rental housing assistance status and history, date of birth and relationship code for minors, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) status, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) status, income, savings level, debt level, educational attainment, employment status, childcare costs, health insurance status, and employment impediments.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    The authority for the collection of records, and the maintenance of this system is authorized by Sections 501-502 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-609), 12 U.S.C. 1701z-1, 1701z-2.

    PURPOSE(S):

    The purpose of the Rent Reform Demonstration SORN is to allow the Department to collect, track, and study information gathered on HCV program participants, and to analyze the overall effectiveness of existing programs and policies to examine the impact on HCV program families. In order to study the sample of up to 9,000 families participating in the Demonstration, it is necessary to collect their contact information and other personal identifying information with their consent so that the Department can match study participants with various forms of administrative data for the purpose of conducting statistical analysis and presenting aggregate analysis of impacts of the alternative rent model on the study sample. In addition, the records collected through this evaluation represent HUD's effort to assess and report to Congress on the performance and impact of this Demonstration. The Department is conducting this study under contract with MDRC and its subcontractors (Branch Associates, The Bronner Group, Quadel Consulting Corporation, and the Urban Institute). The intent of the demonstration is to gain a comprehensive understanding of the impact that the alternative rent system has on families, as well as understand the administrative burden on Public Housing Agencies (PHAs). The Rent Reform Demonstration will rely on multiple data sources. The evaluation will include a careful assessment of the implementation, impacts, and cost of the new policy already developed by four PHAs in different parts of the country. The project is a random assignment trial of an alternative rent system. Families will be randomly assigned to either participate in the new/alternative rent system or to continue in the current system. PHAs currently participating in the MTW Demonstration are being recruited to participate in this demonstration. Data collection will include the study sample of up to 9,000 families that are part of the treatment and control groups. The work covered under this information request is for the baseline survey. The Rent Reform demonstration is structured around a two-group random assignment study. Using this design, up to 9,000 households will be recruited and randomly allocated to the program group or control group, each of which will include up to 4,500 households. Four PHAs have agreed to participate in this demonstration project: (1) Lexington Housing Authority, Kentucky; (2) Louisville Metro Housing Authority, Kentucky; (3) San Antonio Housing Authority, Texas; and (4) District of Columbia Housing Authority, District of Columbia.

    The fundamental goals of the proposed study are:

    1. Increase work effort and reported earnings of families 2. Serve more families

    Ideally, the alternative rent model would yield at least as much income to the PHAs as the current system and would allow administrative savings as well. This would allow them to serve at least the same number of families and continue to meet the goal of preventing (or reducing) homelessness and minimizing rent burden. In addition, the incentive to underreport income would be reduced significantly. In order to measure the impact of the alternative rent model the Department needs to be able to track the study sample of up to 9,000 families to obtain data related to employment, earnings, and hardship outcomes.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside HUD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    1. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons to the extent that such disclosures are compatible with the purpose for which the records in this system were collected, as set forth by Appendix I 1 —HUD's Library of Routine Uses published in the Federal Register (July 17, 2012, at 77 FR 41996);

    1http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=append1.pdf.

    2. To researchers for the purpose of producing a dataset to be used to support the Rent Reform Demonstration and Impact Evaluation of the Rent Reform Demonstration. The data collection will specifically provide data of the household's characteristics to describe the sample and ensure that the two study groups are random, and provide information that allows for the initial triennial calculations to be verified; and

    3. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (a) HUD suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in a system of records has been compromised; (b) HUD has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of systems or programs (whether maintained by HUD or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with HUD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm for purposes of facilitating responses and remediation efforts in the event of a data breach.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE:

    All data collected will be input and stored in a secure database. Hard-copy materials containing respondent identifying information will be locked up when not in use. All hard-copy materials, including completed forms and electronic records on transportable media, will be kept in locked cabinets when not in use. In addition, data on transportable media will be encrypted. Records with PII will not be printed. Records and the file will be destroyed by MDRC at the completion of the study.

    RETRIEVABILITY:

    Records will be retrieved by social security number, entity ID and/or unique study identifier. Data will be retrieved from the initial data files using social security number, entityID, and/or unique study identifier. After receiving all data, another unique household ID will be assigned to each household known by the research team only (called the SampleID); records will be pulled by SampleID when possible.

    SAFEGUARDS:

    Access protections: Access to any server, security, storage, backup, security and infrastructure equipment requires an administrative password. These passwords are only available to senior IT staff and never shared. MDRC workstation and laptop configuration: MDRC employees use as a work station a standard laptop that is configured by authorized members of MDRC's IT Group. Laptops include a fingerprint scanner and application. Network access passwords system: MDRC uses a strong password system to control access to its secure data transfer. An application associates each employee's fingerprint with his/her network password. Wireless Access: No wireless access will be available to files, folders or servers involved with this project, except within MDRC's offices. Screen locking: MDRC's IT department has configured all MDRC computers to lock after 10 minutes without use and require a password or fingerprint scan to unlock. MDRC confidentiality pledge: All MDRC staff must sign a Confidentiality Pledge to abide by the corporate policies on data security and confidentiality.

    RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

    The retention and disposal procedures will be in keeping with HUD's records management statutory obligations as described in 44 U.S.C. 3101 and 3303. Records will be maintained for a period not to exceed five years. All PII associated with the project will be destroyed by MDRC and their subcontractors or otherwise rendered irrecoverable per NIST Special Publication 800-88 “Guidelines for Media Sanitization” (September 2006) at the end of the contract. At the end of the contract, MDRC will destroy all electronic and paper-based records with PII unless otherwise instructed by HUD. All incoming files will be accounted for at the end of the project—deleted or permanently archived per agreement with HUD and with data providers.

    SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:

    Carol Star, Director, Division of Program Evaluation, Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Telephone Number (202) 402-6139.

    NOTIFICATION AND RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    For information, assistance, or inquiries about the existence of records, contact Donna Robinson-Staton, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4156, Washington, DC 20410 (Attention: Capitol View Building, 4th Floor), telephone number: (202) 402-8073. Verification of your identity must include original signature and be notarized. Written request must include the full name, Social Security Number, date of birth, current address, and telephone number of the individual making the request.

    CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

    The Department's rules for contesting contents of records and appealing initial denials appear in 24 CFR part 16. Additional assistance may be obtained by contacting: Donna Robinson-Staton, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4156, Washington, DC 20410 (Attention: Capitol View Building, 4th Floor), telephone number: (202) 402-8073 or the HUD Departmental Privacy Appeals Officers, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington DC 20410.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    Data for this evaluation will be gathered through a variety of methods including informational interviews, direct observation, surveys, and analysis of administrative records. PHAs will provide program participants records, as well as information obtained through an interview of voucher holders that includes: (1) Output of random assignment process data, and (2) Responses provided to baseline information form. Administrative data will come from the participating PHAs' data systems and HUD's Inventory Management System, also known as the Public and Indian Housing Information Center (PIC). This information will be entered into MDRC's on-line system.

    SYSTEMS EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT:

    None.

    [FR Doc. 2015-07613 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5696-N-15] Additional Clarifying Guidance, Waivers, and Alternative Requirements for Grantees in Receipt of Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Funds Under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD. ACTION: Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice provides a waiver and alternative requirement for the State of New Jersey's tenant-based rental assistance program funded through its Community Development Block Grant disaster recovery (CDBG-DR) grant pursuant to the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (Pub. L. 113-2) (the Appropriations Act). In addition, this Notice provides an alternative requirement for Major (Covered) Infrastructure Projects funded by grantees receiving an allocation for disasters occurring in 2013 under the Appropriations Act. This Notice also modifies a requirement for Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting System (DRGR) reporting requirements for all grantees receiving an allocation of CDBG-DR grants pursuant to the Appropriations Act.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stanley Gimont, Director, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 7286, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-708-3587. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. Facsimile inquiries may be sent to Mr. Gimont at 202-401-2044. (Except for the “800” number, these telephone numbers are not toll-free.) Email inquiries may be sent to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Background II. Applicable Rules, Statutes, Waivers, and Alternative Requirements III. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance IV. Finding of No Significant Impact I. Background

    The Appropriations Act made available $16 billion in Community Development Block Grant disaster recovery (CDBG-DR) funds for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and housing, and economic revitalization in the most impacted and distressed areas resulting from a major disaster declared pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) (Stafford Act), due to Hurricane Sandy and other eligible events in calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013. On March 1, 2013, the President issued a sequestration order pursuant to Section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as amended (2 U.S.C. 901a), and reduced the amount of funding for CDBG-DR grants under the Appropriations Act to $15.18 billion. To date, a total of $15.18 billion has been allocated or set aside: $13 billion in response to Hurricane Sandy, $514 million in response to disasters occurring in 2011 or 2012, $655 million in response to 2013 disasters, and $1 billion set aside for the National Disaster Resilience Competition.

    This Notice specifies a waiver and modifies requirements for grantees in receipt of allocations under the Appropriations Act, which are described within the Federal Register Notices published by the Department on March 5, 2013 (78 FR 14329), April 19, 2013 (78 FR 23578), May 29, 2013 (78 FR 32262), August 2, 2013 (78 FR 46999), November 18, 2013 (78 FR 69104), December 16, 2013 (78 FR 76154), March 27, 2014 (79 FR 17173), June 3, 2014 (79 FR 31964), July 11, 2014 (79 FR 40133), October 7, 2014 (79 FR 60490), October 16, 2014 (79 FR 62182), and January 8, 2015 (80 FR 1039), referred to collectively in this Notice as the “Prior Notices.” The requirements of the Prior Notices continue to apply, except as modified by this Notice.1

    1 Links to the Prior Notices, the text of the Appropriations Act, and additional guidance prepared by the Department for CDBG-DR grants, are available on the HUD Exchange Web site: https://www.hudexchange.info/cdbg-dr/cdbg-dr-laws-regulations-and-federal-register-notices/.

    II. Applicable Rules, Statutes, Waivers, and Alternative Requirements

    The Appropriations Act authorizes the Secretary to waive, or specify alternative requirements for, any provision of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers in connection with HUD's obligation or use by the recipient of these funds (except for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment). Waivers and alternative requirements are based upon a determination by the Secretary that good cause exists and that the waiver or alternative requirement is not inconsistent with the overall purposes of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) (HCD Act). Regulatory waiver authority is also provided by 24 CFR 5.110, 91.600, and 570.5.

    For the waiver and alternative requirement described in this Notice, the Secretary has determined that good cause exists and the waiver is not inconsistent with the overall purpose of the HCD Act. Grantees may request waivers and alternative requirements from the Department as needed to address specific needs related to their recovery activities. Under the requirements of the Appropriations Act, waivers must be published in the Federal Register no later than five days before the effective date of such waiver.

    1. Tenant-based rental assistance (State of New Jersey only). The State of New Jersey previously requested a waiver of 42 U.S.C. 5305(a) in order to provide tenant-based rental assistance to households impacted by disasters eligible under the Appropriations Act, and the Department granted this waiver in the Federal Register Notice published on July 11, 2014 (79 FR 40134). This Notice replaces the waiver in the Notice published on July 11, 2014, in section II.3 and increases the amount of funding for this activity by providing an additional $15 million of CDBG-DR funds for tenant- based rental assistance, increasing the amount covered by the waiver from $17 million to $32 million.

    This waiver makes eligible up to $32 million of CDBG-DR funds to be used for rental assistance, utility payments and, if necessary, rental costs (i.e., security deposits and utility deposits). This assistance may be provided on behalf of beneficiaries for a period of up to two years. The State justified a longer term of assistance in order to meet the housing needs of vulnerable populations displaced by Hurricane Sandy until construction of affordable rental units is completed and those units become available.

    On May 30, 2014, the State entered into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement (VCA) with the Department in response to a complaint filed by civil rights and fair housing organizations regarding the State's administration of its CDBG-DR funded recovery programs. The VCA commits the State to providing an additional $15 million of CDBG-DR funds for tenant- based rental assistance, increasing the amount covered by the initial waiver from $17 million to $32 million.

    Thousands of households in New Jersey remain displaced and continue to need housing at a time when the State's housing stock has not fully recovered from the disaster. The decrease in the housing supply placed upward pressure on housing costs, making housing less affordable for households already strained by hurricane-related expenses. By increasing the amount of funding available for tenant-based rental assistance, the State will be able to assist more households and to minimize the incidence of homelessness by providing re-housing and rental assistance. Additionally, the State will link the assisted beneficiaries with services that can help them become stable and self-sufficient. Throughout the rental assistance period, assisted households will receive referrals to available long-term units, as well as housing counseling.

    After reviewing the State's request, and in accordance with the VCA, HUD is waiving 42 U.S.C 5305(a) to make eligible an additional $15 million of CDBG-DR funds for rental assistance and utility payments paid for up to two years on behalf of homeless and at-risk low- and moderate-income households displaced by Hurricane Sandy when such assistance or payments are part of a homeless prevention or rapid re-housing program or activity. The State's tenant-based rental assistance must be funded through its Supportive Services program, limited to payments on behalf of beneficiaries of that program as described in the State's approved Action Plan, and must not be tied to HUD's Section 8 program assistance. This waiver permits the State to review and approve applications for tenant-based rental assistance on behalf of beneficiaries from January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2016, and to provide rental assistance on behalf of approved applicants for up to 24 months, but in no case may assistance be provided on behalf of a beneficiary after January 1, 2018. The additional funds provided for the State's tenant-based rental assistance program through this waiver are subject to all requirements in the Notice published on July 11, 2014 (79 FR 40133) as well as the requirements of the VCA and any subsequent amendments to the VCA.

    2. Identification/Description of Covered Projects (2013 Disaster Grantees only). In the Federal Register Notice published on October 16, 2014 (79 FR 62182), the Department modified requirements for Covered Projects implemented by Hurricane Sandy grantees by stating that grantees need only provide an estimate of the total project cost and CDBG-DR contributions, instead of providing the exact amount of funding. The Department is extending this flexibility to Covered Projects held to the requirements of the Notice published on June 3, 2014 (79 FR 31964). For any Covered Project held to the requirements of that Notice, Section V.3.g.1 (“Action Plan for Disaster Recovery waiver and alternative requirement—Infrastructure Programs and Projects, Additional Requirements for Major Infrastructure Projects, Identification/Description”), is modified to require: A description of the Covered Project, including: total project cost estimate (illustrating both the CDBG-DR award as well as other federal resources for the project, such as funding provided by the Department of Transportation or FEMA), CDBG eligibility (i.e., a citation to the HCD Act, applicable Federal Register notice, or a CDBG regulation), how it will meet a national objective, and the project's connection to Hurricane Sandy or other disasters cited in this Notice. The Department recognizes that grantees often finance large scale infrastructure projects by leveraging several sources of funds that may shift over time. Therefore, the Department may elect to approve projects based on estimates of total project cost and other funding sources as well as the CDBG-DR contribution amount.

    Grantees are expected to provide the best estimates available and the expected timeline for determining the exact costs. Grantees must submit an Action Plan Amendment to reflect any material adjustments to the cost estimate. Where an adjustment of the CDBG-DR contribution to a Covered Project triggers the substantial amendment criteria described in the March 5, 2013 Notice (78 FR 14329) at Section VI.A.3.a. by exceeding the $1 million threshold, grantees must submit a Substantial Action Plan Amendment subject to the requirements of that Notice, which requires no less than 7 calendar days to solicit public comment. All Covered Projects are subject to the 30-day comment period and public hearing required by the July 3, 2014, Notice (79 FR 31964). However, HUD will consider resubmissions of Covered Projects that have fulfilled the public review requirements and were submitted to HUD prior to the effective date of this Notice if they are revised only in accordance with the amended description requirements. Such resubmissions are subject to non-substantial Action Plan Amendment requirements.

    3. Reporting of Responsible Organizations in DRGR (all P.L. 113-2 grantees). In order to draw CDBG-DR funds, grantees must enter an Action Plan into DRGR that includes all activities to be funded. DRGR requires that at least one Primary Responsible Organization be entered for each activity, and grantees may choose to add ancillary Responsible Organizations to an activity. A Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number must be entered for each Responsible Organization. The March 5, 2013 Notice (78 FR 14329) required grantees to enter a DUNS number into the system for any entity carrying out a CDBG-DR funded activity, including the grantee, recipient(s) and subrecipient(s), contractor(s) and developers carrying out a CDBG-DR activity. The language describing DRGR reporting requirements was later revised in the July 11, 2014 Notice (79 FR 40134) to exclude requirements for identifying contracts above $25,000. This Notice, however, did not modify requirements for entering Responsible Organizations or DUNS numbers. To reduce the reporting burden on grantees, paragraph II.1.a. at 79 FR 40134 is amended to require that grantees only enter a DUNS number for the Responsible Organization or Organizations associated with an activity—with the understanding that only a single primary Responsible Organization is required to be identified within grantee DRGR Action Plans—and now reads as follows:

    “The Action Plan must also be entered into the DRGR system so that the grantee is able to draw its CDBG-DR funds. The grantee may enter activities into DRGR before or after submission of the Action Plan to HUD. To enter an activity into the DRGR system, the grantee must know the activity type, national objective, and the organization or organizations that will be responsible for the activity. In addition, a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number must be entered into the system for each entity designated as a Responsible Organization for the activity.”

    Grantees are reminded that this modification applies only to requirements for DRGR DUNS number reporting and does not change any other Federal DUNS number reporting requirements.

    III. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

    The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for the disaster recovery grants under this Notice is as follows: 14.269.

    IV. Finding of No Significant Impact

    A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment has been made 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 the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the docket file must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    Dated: March 27, 2015. Ann Marie Oliva, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs, Community Planning and Development.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07622 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-MB-2015-N064]; [FXMB123109WEBB0-145-FF09M25100] Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. This information collection is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2015. We 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. However, under OMB regulations, we may continue to conduct or sponsor this information collection while it is pending at OMB.

    DATES:

    You must submit comments on or before May 4, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or [email protected] (email). Please provide a copy of your comments to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail), or [email protected] (email). Please include “1018-0019” in the subject line of your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request additional information about this ICR, contact Hope Grey at [email protected] (email) or 703-358-2482 (telephone). You may review the ICR online at http://www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to review Department of the Interior collections under review by OMB.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Information Collection Request

    OMB Control Number: 1018-0019.

    Title: North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey.

    Service Form Number(s): 3-156.

    Type of Request: Extension of currently approved collection.

    Description of Respondents: State, Provincial, local, and tribal employees.

    Frequency of Collection: Annually.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 759.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses: 759.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,354 hours. We estimate that 662 persons will enter data electronically, with an average reporting burden of 1.8 hours per respondent. For all other respondents, we estimate the reporting burden to be 1.67 hours per respondent.

    Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None.

    Abstract: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-754j-2) designate the Department of the Interior as the primary agency responsible for:

    • Management of migratory bird populations frequenting the United States, and

    • Setting hunting regulations that allow for the well-being of migratory bird populations.

    These responsibilities dictate that we gather accurate data on various characteristics of migratory bird populations.

    The North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey is an essential part of the migratory bird management program. State, Federal, Provincial, local, and tribal conservation agencies conduct the survey annually to provide the data necessary to determine the population status of the woodcock. In addition, the information is vital in assessing the relative changes in the geographic distribution of the woodcock. We use the information primarily to develop recommendations for hunting regulations. Without information on the population's status, we might promulgate hunting regulations that:

    • Are not sufficiently restrictive, which could cause harm to the woodcock population, or

    • Are too restrictive, which would unduly restrict recreational opportunities afforded by woodcock hunting.

    The Service, State conservation agencies, university associates, and other interested parties use the data for various research and management projects.

    Comments Received and Our Responses

    Comments: On September 12, 2014, we published in the Federal Register (79 FR 54739) a notice of our intent to request that OMB renew approval for this information collection. In that notice, we solicited comments for 60 days, ending on November 12, 2014. We received one comment. The commenter objected to the hunting of birds and the survey, but did not address the information collection requirements. We have not made any changes to our requirements.

    Request for Public Comments

    We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:

    • Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

    • The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;

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

    • Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. 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 OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.

    Dated: March 30, 2015. Tina A. Campbell, Chief, Division of Policy and Directives Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07553 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R2-ES-2015-N055; FXES11130200000-156-FF02ENEH00] Endangered and Threatened Species Permit Applications AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of receipt of applications; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered or threatened species. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), prohibits activities with endangered and threatened species unless a Federal permit allows such activities. Both the Act and the National Environmental Policy Act require that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, written comments must be received on or before May 4, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Susan Jacobsen, Chief, Division of Classification and Restoration, by U.S. mail at Division of Classification and Recovery, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103; or by telephone at 505-248-6920. Please refer to the respective permit number for each application when submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Jacobsen, Chief, Division of Classification and Restoration, by U.S. mail at P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103; or by telephone at 505-248-6920.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) prohibits activities with endangered and threatened species unless a Federal permit allows such activities. Along with our implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17, the Act provides for permits, and requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.

    A permit granted by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act authorizes applicants to conduct activities with U.S. endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes, enhancement of survival or propagation, or interstate commerce. Our regulations regarding implementation of section 10(a)(1)(A) permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.

    Applications Available for Review and Comment

    We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following applications. Please refer to the appropriate permit number (e.g., Permit No. TE-123456) when requesting application documents and when submitting comments.

    Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

    Permit TE-58490B Applicant: Karen Krebbs, Tucson, Arizona.

    Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris yerbabuenae) within Arizona.

    Permit TE-42739A Applicant: Sea Life Arizona, Tempe, Arizona.

    Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct husbandry and holding of the following species within Arizona:

    • Apache trout (Oncorhynchus apache)

    • Bonytail chub (Gila elegans)

    • Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius)

    • Desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius)

    • Humpback chub (Gila cypha)

    • Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis)

    • Gila trout (Oncorhynchus gilae gilae)

    • Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas)

    • Loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis)

    • Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus)

    • Spikedace (Meda fulgida)

    • Woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus)

    • Yaqui beautiful shiner (Cyprinella formosa)

    • Yaqui chub (Gila purpurea)

    • Yaqui topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis sonoriensis)

    Permit TE-022190 Applicant: Arizona—Sonora Desert Museum, Tucson, Arizona.

    Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct husbandry and holding of the following species within Arizona:

    • Bonytail chub (Gila elegans)

    • Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius)

    • Desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius)

    • Gila chub (Gila intermedia)

    • Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis)

    • Humpback chub (Gila cypha)

    • Lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris yerbabuenae)

    • Loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis)

    • Masked bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus ridgwayi)

    • Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi)

    • Mount Graham red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus grahamensis)

    • Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis)

    • Quitobaquito pupfish (Cyprinodon eremus)

    • Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus)

    • Sonora chub (Gila ditaenia)

    • Sonoran tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi)

    • Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus)

    • Spikedace (Meda fulgida)

    • Woundfin (Plagopterus agentissimus)

    • Yaqui chub (Gila purpurea)

    • Yaqui topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis sonorensis)

    Permit TE-30425B Applicant: David Haygari, Cincinnati, Ohio.

    Applicant requests an amendment to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) within Kansas and Nebraska.

    Permit TE-837751 Applicant: Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix, Arizona.

    Applicant requests an amendment to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for loach minnow (Rhinichthys cobitis) and spikedace (Meda fulgida) within Arizona.

    Permit TE-820730 Applicant: New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources.

    Department—Forestry Division, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

    Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys and collection of the following plants within New Mexico:

    Argemone pinnatisecta (Sacramento prickly poppy)

    Astragalus humillimus (Mancos milk-vetch)

    Cirsium vinaceum (Sacramento Mountains thistle)

    Coryphantha sneedii var. leei (Lee's pincushion cactus)

    Coryphantha sneedii var. sneedii (Sneed's pincushion cactus)

    Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzieri (Kuenzler's hedgehog cactus)

    Erigeron rhizomatus (Zuni fleabane)

    Eriogonum gypsophilum (gypsum wild buckwheat)

    Hedeoma todsenii (Todsen's pennyroyal)

    Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos sunflower)

    Ipomopsis sancti-spiritus (Holy Ghost ipomopsis)

    Pediocactus knowltonii (Knowlton's cactus)

    Sclerocactus mesae-verdae (Mesa Verde cactus)

    Permit TE-60111B Applicant: Natalie Robb, Globe, Arizona.

    Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of the following species within Arizona:

    • Arizona hedgehog cactus (Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. arizonicus)

    • Desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius)

    • Gila chub (Gila intermedia)

    • Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis)

    • Loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis)

    • Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus)

    Permit TE-051139 Applicant: Turner Endangered Species Fund, Bozeman, Montana.

    Applicant requests an amendment to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys; removal and transportation from the wild; captive breeding; and management field activities related to conservation, transportation, and release into suitable unoccupied habitat for Chupadera springsnail (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae) within New Mexico.

    Permit TE-168688 Applicant: Sarah Itz, Austin, Texas.

    Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) within Texas.

    Permit TE-42737A Applicant: Sevenecoten, LLC., Dripping Springs, Texas.

    Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys and nest monitoring of golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) and black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla) within Texas.

    Permit TE-35619A Applicant: Marvin Miller, Spring Branch, Texas.

    Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of the following species in Texas:

    • Bee Creek Cave harvestman (Texella reddelli)

    • Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi)

    • Braken Bat Cave meshweaver (Cicurina venii)

    • Coffin Cave mold beetle (Batrisodes texanus)

    • Cokendolpher Cave harvestman (Texella cokendolpheri)

    • Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver (Cicurina vespera)

    • Government Canyon Bat Cave spider (Neoleptoneta microps)

    • Ground beetle (Unnamed) (Rhadine exilis)

    • Ground beetle (Unnamed) (Rhadine infernalis)

    • Helotes mold beetle (Batrisodes venyivi)

    • Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle (Texamaurops reddelli)

    • Madla Cave meshweaver (Cicurina madla)

    • Robber Baron Cave meshweaver (Cicurina baronia)

    • Tooth Cave ground beetle (Rhadine persephone)

    • Tooth Cave pseudoscorpion (Tartarocreagris texana)

    • Tooth Cave spider (Neoleptoneta (=Leptoneta) myopica)

    Permit TE-61040B Applicant: Shenandoah Deer Services, LLC., San Marcos, Texas.

    Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) within Texas.

    Permit TE-091552 Applicant: Zane Homesley, Austin, Texas.

    Applicant requests aa renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) within Texas and Oklahoma; and for black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla), golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), and Houston toad (Bufo houstonensis) within Texas.

    Permit TE-189566 Applicant: Monica Geick, Littleton, Colorado.

    Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) within Texas.

    Permit TE-92407A Applicant: Raven Environmental Services, Inc., Huntsville, Texas.

    Applicant requests an amendment to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct surveys using peeper scopes to examine cavities of nesting red-cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides borealis) throughout the range of the species in the United States.

    Permit TE-35163A Applicant: Joseph Grzybowski, Norman, Oklahoma.

    Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla) within Oklahoma and Texas.

    Permit TE-61045B Applicant: Jennifer Scott, Yukon, Oklahoma.

    Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla) within Oklahoma and Texas; southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) within Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah; and Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) within California.

    Permit TE-61046B Applicant: Christina Perez, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

    Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of Americans burying beetle (Nicroporus americans) within Oklahoma.

    Permit TE-61048B Applicant: Veteran Environmental, LLC., Choctaw, Oklahoma.

    Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) within Arkansas, Texas, and Oklahoma.

    Permit TE-61124B Applicant: Curtis Creighton, Hammond, Indiana.

    Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) within Oklahoma.

    Permit TE-028605 Applicant: SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Flagstaff, Arizona.

    Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of the following species, where they occur, in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah:

    • Bee Creek Cave harvestman (Texella reddelli)

    • Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes)

    • Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi)

    • Bonytail chub (Gila elegans)

    • Braken Bat Cave meshweaver (Cicurina venii)

    • Coffin Cave mold beetle (Batrisodes texanus)

    • Cokendolpher Cave harvestman (Texella cokendolpheri)

    • Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius)

    • Comal Springs dryopid beetle (Stygoparnus comalensis)

    • Comal Springs riffle beetle (Heterelmis comalensis)

    • Desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius)

    • Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis)

    • Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver (Cicurina vespera)

    • Government Canyon Bat Cave spider (Neoleptoneta microps)

    • Ground beetle (Unnamed) (Rhadine exilis)

    • Ground beetle (Unnamed) (Rhadine infernalis)

    • Helotes mold beetle (Batrisodes venyivi)

    • Hualapai Mexican vole (Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis)

    • Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis)

    • Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle (Texamaurops reddelli)

    • Lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris yerbabuenae)

    • Loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis)

    • Madla Cave meshweaver (Cicurina madla)

    • Mexican long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris nivalis)

    • Mount Graham red squirrel (Tamasciurus hudsonicus grahamensis)

    • Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus)

    • Robber Baron Cave meshweaver (Cicurina baronia)

    • Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus)

    • Spikedace (Meda fulgida)

    • Tooth Cave ground beetle (Rhadine persephone)

    • Tooth Cave pseudoscorpion (Tartarocreagris texana)

    • Tooth Cave spider (Neoleptoneta (=Leptoneta) myopica)

    • Woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus)

    • Yaqui chub (Gila purpurea)

    • Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis)

    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    In compliance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), we have made an initial determination that the proposed activities in these permits are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement (516 DM 6 Appendix 1, 1.4C(1)).

    Public Availability of Comments

    All comments and materials we receive in response to this request will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    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.

    Authority

    We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)

    Dated: March 25, 2015. Joy E. Nicholopoulos Acting Regional Director, Southwest Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07548 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-IA-2014-0019; FXIA167109ADV15-156-FF09A00000] Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a public meeting of the Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking (Council). The Council's purpose is to provide expertise and support to the Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking. You may attend the meeting in person, or you may participate via telephone. At this time, we are inviting submissions of questions and information for consideration during the meeting.

    DATES:

    Meeting: The meeting will be held on Thursday, April 23, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Eastern Time.

    Registering to Attend the Meeting: To attend the meeting in person, you must register by close of business on April 15, 2015. (You do not need to register to listen via phone.) Please submit your name, email address, and phone number to Mr. Cade London to complete the registration process (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Because there is limited seating available, registrations will be taken on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public requesting reasonable accommodations, such as hearing interpreters, must contact Mr. London, in writing (preferably by email), no later than April 15, 2015.

    Submitting Questions or Information: If you want to provide us with questions and information to be considered during the meeting, your material must be received or postmarked on or before April 8, 2015. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on April 8, 2015.

    Making an Oral Presentation at the Meeting: If you want to make an oral presentation at the meeting (in person or by phone), contact Mr. London no later than April 8, 2015 (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). For more information, see Making an Oral Presentation under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting Location: The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of the Interior, South Interior Building Auditorium, 1951 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20240.

    Meeting Call-In Numbers: Members of the public unable to attend the meeting in person may call in at 888-946-7612 (toll free) or 1-517-308-9325 (toll) using the verbal passcode TRAFFIC. Members may register to give an oral presentation over the phone as well. For more information, see Making an Oral Presentation under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    Submitting Questions or Information: You may submit questions or information for consideration during the meeting by one of the following methods:

    1. Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-HQ-IA-2014-0019. Then click on the “Search” button. You may submit questions or information by clicking on “Comment Now!”

    2. By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-IA-2014-0019; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ABHC; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

    We will not accept email or faxes. We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Submitting Public Comments section below for more information).

    Reviewing Comments Received by the Service: See Reviewing Public Comments in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Cade London, Special Assistant, International Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, by email at [email protected] (preferable method of contact); by U.S. mail at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: IA; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; by telephone at (703) 358-2584; or by fax at (703) 358-2276.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), we announce that the Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking (Council) will hold a meeting to discuss the implementation of the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking, and other Council business as appropriate. The Council's purpose is to provide expertise and support to the Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking.

    You may attend the meeting in person, or you may participate via telephone. At this time, we are inviting submissions of questions and information for consideration during the meeting.

    Background

    Executive Order 13648 established the Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking on August 30, 2013, to advise the Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking, through the Secretary of the Interior, on national strategies to combat wildlife trafficking, including, but not limited to:

    1. Effective support for anti-poaching activities;

    2. Coordinating regional law enforcement efforts;

    3. Developing and supporting effective legal enforcement mechanisms; and

    4. Developing strategies to reduce illicit trade and consumer demand for illegally traded wildlife, including protected species.

    The eight-member Council, appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, includes former senior leadership within the U.S. Government, as well as chief executive officers and board members from conservation organizations and the private sector. For more information on the Council and its members, visit http://www.fws.gov/international/advisory-council-wildlife-trafficking/.

    Meeting Agenda

    The Council will consider:

    1. National Strategy updates and Task Force discussions,

    2. Administrative topics, and

    3. Public comment and response.

    The final agenda will be posted on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/international/advisory-council-wildlife-trafficking/, as well as at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Making an Oral Presentation

    Members of the public who want to make an oral presentation in person or by telephone at the meeting will be prompted during the public comment section of the meeting to provide their presentation and/or questions. If you want to make an oral presentation in person or by phone, contact Mr. Cade London (FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than the date given in the DATES section for Making an Oral Presentation at the Meeting.

    Registered speakers who want to expand on their oral statements, or those who wanted to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, are invited to submit written statements to the Council after the meeting. Such written statements must be received by Mr. London, in writing (preferably via email), no later than April 30, 2015.

    Submitting Public Comments

    You may submit your questions and information by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments by only one of the methods described in ADDRESSES.

    If you submit information via the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov), your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site.

    If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Reviewing Public Comments

    Comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you may view them by appointment during normal business hours at 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803. Please contact Mr. London (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Obtaining Meeting Minutes

    Summary minutes of the meeting will be available on the Council Web site at http://www.fws.gov/international/advisory-council-wildlife-trafficking/, as well as at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you may view them by appointment during normal business hours at 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803. Please contact Mr. London (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Gloria Bell, Deputy Assistant Director, International Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07546 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [145A21000DDAAK3000000/ADT00000.00000] Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Liquor Control Statute AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice publishes the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Liquor Control Statute. The Statute establishes a Liquor and Tobacco Licensing Board to regulate and control the possession, sale, and consumption of liquor and tobacco within the jurisdiction of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians. The Statute consists of two chapters: Waganakising Odawak Statute 2009-019 (Liquor and Tobacco Licensing Board Statute) and Waganakising Odawak Statute 2014-006 (Liquor and Tobacco License Violations Statute). The Statute repeals and replaces the previous liquor control ordinance published in the Federal Register on December 14, 1999 (64 FR 69780), and any and all previous Statutes.

    DATES:

    This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after April 2, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. David Christensen, Tribal Operations Officer, Midwest Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 5600 West American Blvd., Suite 500, Bloomington, Minnesota 55437, Telephone: (612) 725-4554; Fax: (612) 713-4401, or Ms. Laurel Iron Cloud, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Indian Services, 1849 C Street NW., MS-4513-MIB, Washington, DC 20240; Telephone: (202) 513-7641.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, Public Law 83-277, 67 Stat. 586, 18 U.S.C. 1161, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983), the Secretary of the Interior shall certify and publish in the Federal Register notice of adopted liquor ordinances for the purpose of regulating liquor transactions in Indian country. The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians duly adopted Waganakising Odawak Statute 2009-019 (Liquor and Tobacco Licensing Board Statute) on July 26, 2009, and Waganakising Odawak Statute 2014-006 (Liquor and Tobacco License Violations Statute) on June 8, 2014. Together, the Statutes repeal and replace the previous liquor control ordinance published in the Federal Register on December 14, 1999 (64 FR 69780).

    This notice is published in accordance with the authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. I certify that the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians duly adopted Statute Waganakising Odawak Statute 2009-019 (Liquor and Tobacco Licensing Board Statute) on July 26, 2009, and Waganakising Odawak Statute 2014-006 (Liquor and Tobacco License Violations Statute) on June 8, 2014.

    Dated: March 26, 2015. Kevin K. Washburn, Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. Chapter 27. Liquor and Tobacco Licensing Board Statute 6.2701 Short Title

    This Statute may be cited as the “Licensing Board.”

    (Source: WOS 2009-019, July 26, 2009, Section I) 6.2702 Purpose

    The purpose of this Statute is to provide for the establishment of the Liquor and Tobacco Licensing Board that issues, renews and regulates liquor and tobacco licenses and permits in order to protect the rights and interest of Tribal Citizens.

    (Source: WOS 2009-019, July 26, 2009, Section II) 6.2703 Definitions

    The following definitions apply in this Statute:

    A. “Alcoholic Liquor” means the four varieties of liquor (alcohol, spirits, wine and beer) and all fermented, spirituous, vinous, or malt liquor, or combinations thereof, and mixed liquor, a part of which is fermented, spirituous, vinous or malt liquor, or otherwise intoxicating; and every liquor or solid or semi-solid or other substance, patented or not, containing alcohol, spirits, wine or beer, and all drinks or drinkable liquids and all preparations or mixtures capable of human consumption, and any liquid, semi-solid, solid, or other substance, which contains more than one percent of alcohol by weight shall be conclusively deemed to be intoxicating.

    B. “Board” means the Liquor and Tobacco Licensing Board.

    C. “Cigarette” means any roll for smoking, made wholly or in part of tobacco, irrespective of size or shape and irrespective of whether the tobacco is flavored, adulterated or mixed with any other ingredient, where such roll has a wrapper or cover made of paper or any material, except where such wrapper is wholly or in the greater part made of natural leaf tobacco in its natural state.

    D. “Licensee” means any person or entity, including any employee or agent of the Licensee, licensed by the Tribe to sell alcohol or tobacco on Tribal trust lands.

    E. “LTBB” or “Tribe” means the Waganakising Odawak Nation, also known as the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians.

    F. “Person” or “Entity” means any individual, firm, partnership, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, trustee, syndicate or any other group or combination acting as a unit.

    G. “Tobacco Products” means all forms of tobacco prepared in such a manner as to be suitable for chewing or smoking including cigarettes, cigars, smoking tobacco, snuff, and chewing tobacco.

    H. “Tribal Court” means the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Tribal Court.

    (Source: WOS 2009-019, July 26, 2009, Section III) 6.2704 Liquor and Tobacco Licenses

    A. Any person or entity that shall engage in the sale of alcohol or tobacco within the jurisdiction of the Tribe shall first obtain a license for such sale, provided that any person or entity engaging in such sales prior to the adoption of this Statute shall obtain a license within sixty (60) days from the enactment of this Statute.

    B. A license shall be valid for a period of one (1) year from the date of its issuance and shall expire automatically without notice on the expiration date stated in the license.

    C. No license shall be transferable.

    D. Temporary licenses for a limited time-frame and purpose may also be available.

    (Source: WOS 2009-019, July 26, 2009, Section IV) 6.2705 Liquor and Tobacco Licensing Board

    A. The Liquor and Tobacco Licensing Board (“Board”) is hereby created within the Executive Branch to carry out the purposes stated in this Statute, and each annual budget submitted by the Executive shall include funding for the Board's operation subject to funding availability.

    B. The Board shall adopt policies and regulations to carry out its duties under this Statute, subject to Tribal Council approval. General application of Commission, Board, and Committee Statutes shall not apply to this board unless designated otherwise.

    C. The Board shall meet once a year in regular meetings and additionally if necessary within 15 days of receiving any request for action by the Board.

    D. Appointments, Term, Nepotism, and Conflict.

    1. The Board shall consist of three (3) members nominated by the Executive and confirmed by the Tribal Council. To be eligible for appointment a person must be a Tribal Citizen who is at least eighteen (18) years of age and is familiar with all Tribal liquor and tobacco laws, regulations, policies, and procedures. One Board member will have at least two years experience in law enforcement, legal, or judiciary. The Board members shall serve three-year terms with initial appointments being one member for one year, a second member for two years, and a third for three years to provide for staggered terms.

    2. Tribal employees may serve on the Board and may be compensated by stipend if the Board is not directly related to their employment, does not interfere with their work, and does not meet during scheduled work hours. If a Board meets during scheduled working hours and the staff member wishes to attend, the staff member must utilize PTO (personal time off), or flextime upon prior approval of the individual's supervisor.

    3. Two or more members of the same immediate family as defined in the Constitution shall not serve on the Board at the same time.

    4. No Board member may participate in making any decision that involves a personal or financial interest of the Board or a member of his or her immediate family unless such interest is held in common with the Tribe and its Citizens.

    E. Open Meetings and Records

    1. Board meetings shall be open to LTBB Citizens.

    2. Board records shall be open to LTBB Citizens.

    3. The Board must provide notice of meetings at least five days in advance of the meeting.

    F. Compensation and Stipends

    1. Board members who attend any meeting or hearing directly related to their duties or attend any event where their attendance is required may be compensated for attendance so long as there are funds available in the Board's budget.

    2. Board members shall receive a stipend for attendance at Board meetings subject to the availability of funds.

    3. Any Board member who attends a properly noticed meeting shall be eligible for a stipend, mileage, and expenses, even if no official action can be taken due to lack of a quorum.

    (Source: WOS 2009-019, July 26, 2009, Section V) 6.2706 Authority

    A. The Board shall hear and decide the granting, denial, or renewal of licenses and permits.

    B. The Board shall hear and decide on the suspension or revocation of a license based on citations of violations.

    C. The Board shall hear and decide appeals on the issuance of citations.

    D. The Board may hire inspectors or investigators provided funding availability.

    (Source: WOS 2009-019, July 26, 2009, Section VII) 6.2707 Appeals of Citations to the Board

    A. Any party who has received an issuance of citations and disagrees with the citation may appeal to the Board.

    1. An appeal of a citation must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of the citation. The party must file a written appeal to the Board including at a minimum:

    a. A clear and concise statement of the reason(s) the appellant believes the decision should be overturned by the Board; and

    b. The relief requested from the Board.

    B. The aggrieved party must be given an effective opportunity to defend themselves by confronting any adverse witnesses and by being allowed to present witnesses, evidence and arguments.

    C. The Board shall hear the appeal within fifteen (15) calendar days of filing, either during a regular meeting or special meeting called for that purpose, and issue its written ruling within ten (10) days of such hearing.

    (Source: WOS 2009-019, July 26, 2009, Section VIII) 6.2708 Judicial Review

    A. Decisions of the Board may be appealed to the Tribal Court by filing a written appeal with the Court within ten (10) days of the Board's ruling. The Court shall uphold the decision of the Board unless the Court determines that the Board's decision is clearly arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with applicable law or regulations.

    B. The Tribal Council expressly waives the sovereign immunity of the Tribe and its agents for the limited purpose of reviewing the decisions of the Board under the standards set forth in Section VI.A and allowing for the remedies set forth in Section VI.C.

    C. In the event the Court finds the Board's decision to be clearly arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with applicable law or regulations, it shall enter an equitable order overturning the Board's action, but shall not award monetary damages.

    (Source: WOS 2009-019, July 26, 2009, Section IX) 6.2709 Sovereign Immunity

    The Tribe, and all of its constituent parts, which includes but is not limited to Tribal enterprises, subordinate organizations, boards, committees, officers, employees and agents, are immune from suit in any jurisdiction except to the extent that such immunity has been clearly and expressly waived by Tribe Council.

    (Source: WOS 2009-019, July 26, 2009, Section X) 6.2710 Regulations

    The Executive may develop Regulations as it deems necessary for the implementation of the intent of this Statute and shall forward such Regulations to the Tribal Council for approval.

    (Source: WOS 2009-019, July 26, 2009, Section XI) 6.2711 Savings Clause

    In the event that any section, subsection, or phrase of this Statute is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to violate the Constitution or laws of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, such part shall be considered to stand alone and to be deleted from this Statute, the entirety of the balance of the Statute to remain in full and binding force and effect so long as the overall intent of the Statute remains intact.

    (Source: WOS 2009-019, July 26, 2009, Section XII) 6.2712 Effective Date

    Effective upon the signature of the Executive, or 30 days from submission to the Executive branch, or if the Executive vetoes the legislation, then upon Tribal Council override of the veto.

    (Source: WOS 2009-019, July 26, 2009, Section XIII) Waganakising Odawak Statute 2014-006 Liquor and Tobacco License Violations Statute Section I. Short Title

    This Statute may be cited as the “License Violation Statute.” This Statute repeals and replaces Waganakising Odawak Statute 1999-008 and previous Statute WOS 1997-021, and any and all previous Statutes.

    Section II. Purpose

    The purpose of this Statute is to provide for violations of Liquor and Tobacco Licenses issued by the Liquor and Tobacco Licensing Board that may impair the issuance or renewal of a liquor or tobacco license or may cause such licenses to be suspended or revoked in order to protect the rights and interest of the Tribe and Tribal Citizens.

    Section III. Authority

    Tribal Council has the power and authority to regulate the liquor and tobacco sales and violations as set forth in this Statute in accordance with the Constitution, Article VII D (1), D (16), D (19), and D (24).

    Section IV. Definitions

    The following definitions apply in this Statute:

    A. “Alcoholic Liquor” means the four varieties of liquor (alcohol, spirits, wine, and beer) and all fermented, spirituous, vinous, or malt liquor, or combinations thereof, and mixed liquor, a part of which is fermented, spirituous, vinous or malt liquor, or otherwise intoxicating; and every liquor or solid or semi-solid or other substance, patented or not, containing alcohol, spirits, wine or beer, and all drinks or drinkable liquids and all preparations or mixtures capable of human consumption, and any liquid, semi-solid, solid, or other substance that contains more than one percent of alcohol by weight shall be conclusively deemed to be intoxicating.

    B. “Board” means the Liquor and Tobacco Licensing Board.

    C. “Cigarette” means any roll for smoking, made wholly or in part of tobacco, irrespective of size or shape and irrespective of whether the tobacco is flavored, adulterated or mixed with any other ingredient, where such roll has a wrapper or cover made of paper or any material, except where such wrapper is wholly or in the greater part made of natural leaf tobacco in its natural state.

    D. “Licensee” means any person or entity, includes any employee or agent of the Licensee, licensed by the Tribe to sell alcohol or tobacco on Tribal trust lands.

    E. “LTBB” or “Tribe” means the Waganakising Odawak Nation, also known as the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians.

    F. “Person” or “Entity” means any individual, firm, partnership, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, trustee, syndicate or any other group or combination acting as a unit.

    G. “Tobacco Products” means all forms of tobacco prepared in such a manner as to be suitable for chewing or smoking including cigarettes, cigars, smoking tobacco, snuff, and chewing tobacco.

    H. “Tribal Court” means the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Tribal Court.

    Section V. Liquor and Tobacco Licensing Board

    The Liquor and Tobacco Licensing Board established by WAGANAKISING STATUTE, LIQUOR AND TOBACCO LICENSING BOARD STATUTE, is an Executive Board and is authorized to implement this statute, as may be amended.

    Section VI. Liquor Violations

    Citations may be issued for the violations of the following:

    A. Under the age of Twenty-One (21).

    1. A licensee shall not directly, individually, or by a clerk, agent, or servant knowingly sell, furnish, or give alcoholic liquor to a person under the age of twenty-one (21) or fail to make diligent inquiry as to whether the person is of age.

    2. A licensee shall not allow any person who is less than eighteen (18) years of age to sell or serve alcoholic liquor.

    B. Intoxicated Persons.

    1. A licensee shall not directly or indirectly, individually or by a clerk, agent, or servant sell, furnish, or give alcoholic liquor to a person who is visibly intoxicated.

    2. A licensee shall not allow an intoxicated person to consume alcoholic liquor on the licensed premises.

    C. Hours of Sales.

    1. A licensee shall not sell at retail, give away, or furnish alcoholic liquor between the following hours: 2 a.m. and 7 a.m. of any day.

    2. Variations:

    The except as modified by an intergovernmental agreement that may apply to a specific Tribal enterprise and 4 a.m. and 7 a.m. on January 1 (New Year's Day).

    D. Extended Hours.

    An extended hour(s) permit is required for an on-premises licensee to allow for the sale or consumption of alcoholic liquor at any time other than the legal hours for the sale and consumption of alcoholic liquor.

    E. Sale of Adulterated or Mislabeled Liquor.

    1. A licensee by himself or by his agent or employee, shall not sell, offer for sale, or possess any alcoholic liquor that is adulterated or misbranded or any alcoholic liquor in bottles that have been refilled.

    2. Alcoholic liquor shall be deemed adulterated if it contains any liquids or other ingredients not placed there by the original manufacturer or bottler. For the purposes of this Section, alcoholic liquor shall be deemed misbranded when not plainly labeled, marked, or otherwise designated.

    3. Alcoholic liquor bottles shall be deemed to be refilled when the bottles contain any liquid or other ingredient not placed in the bottles by the original manufacturer.

    F. Premises.

    1. A Licensee shall not allow alcoholic liquor sold for on-premises consumption to be removed from premises.

    2. A Licensee that sells wine on the premises may allow an individual who has purchased a meal and who has purchased and partially consumed a bottle of wine with the meal, to remove the partially consumed bottle from the premises upon departure, provided that the licensee or the licensee's clerk, agent, or employee shall reinsert a cork so that the top of the cork is level with the lip of the bottle.

    3. This section does not allow for the removal of any additional unopened bottles of wine unless the licensee is licensed to conduct off premises sales.

    4. This section does not prevent a hotel from allowing its invitees or guests to possess or consume, or both, on or about its premises, alcoholic liquor purchased by the invitee or guest from an off-premises retailer, and does not prevent a guest or invitee from entering and exiting the licensed premises with alcoholic liquor purchased from an off-premises retailer.

    5. An off-premise licensee who is not licensed as an on-premise licensee shall not have open containers of alcoholic liquor on the premises.

    6. An off-premise licensee who is not licensed as an on-premise licensee shall not allow the consumption of alcoholic liquor on the licensed premises, except as allowed in G (2).

    7. An off-premise licensee shall not give bottle or can openers to purchasers and shall not open bottles or cans of alcoholic liquor for purchasers on the licensed premises.

    8. An off-premise licensee shall not knowingly allow a person to consume alcoholic liquor on property owned, leased, or possessed by the licensee adjacent to the licensed premises.

    G. Giving Away Alcoholic Liquor

    1. A Licensee shall not give away any alcoholic liquor of any kind or description at any time in connection with his or her business, except manufacturers for consumption on the premises only.

    2. Exceptions:

    a. If the licensee is a hotel, the licensee may give away alcoholic liquor to an invitee or guest in connection with a business event or as a part of a room special or promotion for overnight accommodations.

    b. Licensee may allow samplings or tastings of any alcoholic liquor for which monetary gain or other remuneration could reasonably be expected.

    c. Tasting of alcoholic liquor as part of a bona fide market research organization that is conducted for a product before it is approved for sale.

    d. Licensee may allow giving a sampling or tasting of alcoholic liquor to an employee of the licensee during the legal hours for consumption for the purpose of educating the employee regarding 1 or more types of alcoholic liquor so long as the employee is at least 21 years of age.

    H. Quantity of Alcohol.

    1. An on-premise licensee shall not sell, offer to sell, or advertise the sale of, an unlimited quantity of alcoholic liquor at a specific price.

    2. No licensee shall sell, offer to sell, or advertise the sale of, two or more identical drinks containing alcoholic liquor to a person for their consumption for one price. When two or more identical drinks containing alcoholic liquor are served to a person at one time, the price charged for the second drink shall be the same price as for the first drink.

    I. Prizes, alcohol use.

    A licensee shall not participate in or sponsor any contest that requires the use or consumption of alcoholic liquor or features alcoholic liquor as a prize in connection with a contest. Sponsored events that involve the purchase of alcoholic liquor for eligibility are exempt.

    J. Controlled Substances/Drug Paraphernalia.

    A licensee shall not allow the sale, possession, or consumption on the licensed premises of any controlled substances that are prohibited by Tribal, State of Michigan or Federal Law.

    K. Fights and Weapons.

    1. A licensee shall not allow fights on or in the licensed premises, other than promotional events such as boxing, cage fights, etc. Nor shall a licensee, or the clerk, servant, agent, or employee of the licensee, allow, on the licensed premises, the annoying or molesting of customers or employees by other customers or employees.

    2. A licensee shall not allow the unlawful possession or use of firearms, knives, or other weapons on the premises.

    L. Improper or No Display of Liquor License/Permits.

    Licenses issued by the commission shall be signed by the licensee, shall be framed under transparent material, and shall be prominently displayed in the licensed premises.

    M. Suspension of License.

    1. A licensee shall not sell, offer for sale, furnish, consume, or allow the consumption of, alcoholic liquor on the licensed premises during the period that the license is suspended by the Board.

    2. During the time of suspension of a license by the Board, the notice of the suspension shall be continuously posted in a conspicuous place on the licensed premises in full view of the public.

    N. Cooperation with Officers.

    A licensee, or clerk, servant, agent or employee of the licensee, shall not hinder or obstruct a law enforcement officer, commission inspector, or investigator in the course of investigating or inspecting the premises and shall not refuse, fail, or neglect to cooperate with a law enforcement officer, commission, inspector or investigator in the performance of his or her duties to enforce the act or commission rules.

    Section VII. Tobacco Violations

    A. Prohibited Places. Smoking or carrying lighted tobacco in any form is prohibited in the following areas:

    1. Public areas designated as “non-smoking”.

    2. Passenger elevators.

    3. Tribal Governmental Buildings.

    4. School Buildings.

    5. Child Care Centers. Smoking is permitted on these premises during the time these facilities are not in operation, but the operator of the facility must inform parents or guardians that smoking on the premises may occur during these times.

    6. Health Facilities. Smoking is prohibited in the common and treatment areas of health facilities, including hospitals, health clinics, and doctors' offices. Patients may be permitted to smoke if the medical staff determines that this prohibition would be detrimental to treatment. Smoking areas provided in these cases must be separately ventilated to ensure that there is a smoke-free environment in other patient care and common areas.

    7. Licensed Nursing Homes and Licensed Homes for the Aged. Licensed nursing homes and licensed homes for the aged must adopt a policy that regulates smoking to provide patients with the option of non-smoking rooms, and restrict patient smoking to private or semiprivate rooms or designated smoking areas. Visitors and staff are permitted to smoke in designated smoking areas only. Tobacco sales are prohibited in nursing homes, except as provided for by owners. Notices must be posted for smoking and non-smoking areas.

    8. Restaurants. Food service establishments seating fifty (50) or more persons must reserve a seating area for a nonsmoking section. All food service establishments seating fewer than fifty (50) people are not required to provide for a non-smoking section. Public areas in restaurants must be smoke-free. These areas include, but are not limited to, restrooms, coatrooms, and entrances. Public areas do not include lobbies, waiting rooms, hallways, or lounges.

    B. Under the Age of Eighteen (18).

    1. A person shall not sell or furnish any tobacco product to a person less than eighteen (18) years of age.

    2. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant had, and continues to have in force, a written policy to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors and enforces said policy.

    3. This does not apply to the handling or transportation of a tobacco product by a person under the age of eighteen (18) under the terms of employment.

    4. This does not interfere with the right of a parent or legal guardian in the rearing and management of their minor children within the bounds of their private premises.

    C. Sign Posting. A person who sells tobacco products at retail shall post, in a place close to the point of sale, conspicuous to both employees and customers, a sign produced by the Department of Community Health that states: “THE PURCHASE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS BY A MINOR UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE AND PROVISION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS TO A MINOR ARE PROHIBITED BY LAW. A MINOR UNLAWFULLY PURCHASING OR USING TOBACCO PRODUCTS IS SUBJECT TO PENALTIES.”

    D. Internet Sales. All sales conducted through the Internet, by telephone, or in a mail-order transaction shall be prohibited.

    E. Single Cigarettes. A person who sells tobacco products at retail shall not sell a cigarette separately from its package. This does not apply to tobacco specialty stores or other retail stores that deal exclusively in the sale of tobacco products and smoking paraphernalia.

    F. Vending Machines Placement. Vending machines are restricted to areas that are not easily accessible to persons under the age of eighteen (18) and are within the direct visual supervision of an adult.

    G. Improper or no display of license/permits

    Licenses issued by the commission shall be signed by the licensee, shall be framed under transparent material, and shall be prominently displayed in the licensed premises.

    H. Suspension of License.

    1. A licensee shall not sell, offer for sale, or furnish, tobacco on the licensed premises during the period that the license is suspended by the Board.

    2. During the time of suspension of a license by the Board, the notice of the suspension shall be continuously posted in a conspicuous place on the licensed premises in full view of the public.

    I. Cooperation with Officers.

    A licensee, clerk, servant, agent, or employee of the licensee shall not hinder or obstruct a law enforcement officer, commission inspector, or investigator in the course of investigating or inspecting the premises and shall not refuse, fail, or neglect to cooperate with a law enforcement officer, commission inspector or investigator in the performance of his or her duties to enforce the act or commission rules.

    Section VIII. Religious Freedom

    Nothing in this Statute shall prohibit American Indians from practicing any recognized religious ceremony, ritual, or activity in accordance with their Religious Freedom.

    Section IX. Marketing

    A licensee shall not intentionally market for profit tobacco or tobacco products to persons under the age of eighteen (18).

    Section X. Application of State Law

    Per the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. 1161, all acts or transactions regarding liquor control shall conform to this Statute or the laws of Michigan, whichever is more stringent. Nothing in this section or Statute is intended to allow the State of Michigan to exercise any jurisdiction over the Tribe, its members, or any persons or transactions within jurisdiction of the Tribe. Nothing in this section or statute is intended to in any way waive or limit the sovereign immunity of the Tribe.

    Section XI. Enforcement

    A. The Tribal Law Enforcement Department is authorized to issue citations for violations of this Statute.

    B. Any inspectors and/or investigators hired by the Board are authorized to issue citations of violations of this Statute.

    Section XII. Savings Clause

    In the event that any section, subsection or phrase of this Statute is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to violate the Constitution or laws of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, such part shall be considered to stand alone and to be deleted from this Statute, the entirety of the balance of the Statute to remain in full and binding force and effect so long as the overall intent of the Statute remains intact.

    Section XIII. Effective Date

    Effective upon the signature of the Executive, or 30 days from submission to the Executive branch, or if the Executive vetoes the legislation, then upon Tribal Council override of the veto.

    [FR Doc. 2015-07614 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—3d Pdf Consortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on February 23, 2015, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), 3D PDF Consortium, Inc. (“3D PDF”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Leslie Miller (individual member), Greenville, SC; and Olivier Rigolett (individual member), Lyon, FRANCE, have been added as parties to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and 3D PDF intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On March 27, 2012, 3D PDF filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on April 20, 2012 (77 FR 23754).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on December 4, 2014. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on January 5, 2015 (80 FR 260).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07529 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1121-0260] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Reinstatement, With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection for Which Approval Has Expired: 2015 Police Public Contact Survey (PPCS) AGENCY:

    Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 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 of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register at Volume 80, Number 19, pages 4946-4947, January 29, 2015, allowing for a 60 day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until May 4, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Lynn Langton, Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 (email: [email protected]; telephone: 202-353-3328). Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20530 or sent to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 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; —Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; 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. Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: 2015 Police Public Contact Survey.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: The form number for the questionnaire is PPCS-1. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the Office of Justice Programs.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Respondents will be persons 16 years or older living in households located throughout the United States sampled for the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The PPCS will be conducted as a supplement to the NCVS in all sample households for a six (6) month period. The PPCS is one component of the BJS effort to fulfill the mandate set forth by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to collect, evaluate, and publish data on the use of excessive force by law enforcement personnel. The goal of the collection is to report national statistics that provide a better understanding of the types, frequency, and outcomes of contacts between the police and the public, public perceptions of police behavior during the contact, and the conditions under which police force may be threatened or used. BJS plans to publish this information in reports and reference it when responding to queries from the U.S. Congress, Executive Office of the President, the U.S. Supreme Court, state officials, international organizations, researchers, students, the media, and others interested in criminal justices statistics.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimate of the total number of respondents is 91,663. About 80% of respondents (73,330) will have no police contact and will complete the short interview with an average burden of three minutes. Among the 20% of respondents (18,333) who experienced police contact, the time to ask the detailed questions regarding the nature of the contact is estimated to take an average of 10 minutes. Respondents will be asked to respond to this survey only once during the six month period. The burden estimate is based on data from prior administrations of the PPCS.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 6,722 total burden hours associated with this collection.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: March 30, 2015. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07555 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 4410-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—ASTM International Standards

    Notice is hereby given that, on February 18, 2015, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), the ASTM International (“ASTM”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, ASTM has provided an updated list of current, ongoing ASTM standards activities originating between December 2014 and February 2015 designated as Work Items. A complete listing of ASTM Work Items along with a brief description of each, is available at http://www.astm.org.

    On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on November 10, 2004 (69 FR 65226).

    The last notification with the Attorney General was filed on December 9, 2014. A notice was filed in the Federal Register on December 31, 2014 (79 FR 78908).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07527 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—High Density Packaging User Group International Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on February 23, 2015, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), High Density Packaging User Group International, Inc. (“HDPUG”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Nokia Networks, Oulu, FINLAND; and Safran, Eragny-sur-Oise, FRANCE, have been added as parties to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and HDPUG intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On September 14, 1994, HDPUG filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15306).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 31, 2014. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on December 16, 2014 (79 FR 74766).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07528 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1110-NEW] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Approval for New Collection; FBI National Academy: United States Holocaust Memorial's Law Enforcement and Society Questionnaire AGENCY:

    Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    60-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Training Division's Curriculum Management Section (CMS) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until June 1, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Keith Shirley, Unit Chief, Evaluation and Assessment Unit, Training Division, FBI Academy, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Quantico, Virginia 22135, (phone 703-632-3025).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Federal Bureau of Investiagtion, 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; —Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; 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. Overview of This Information Collection

    1 Type of Information Collection: Approval of a New Collection.

    2 The Title of the Form/Collection: FBI National Academy: United States Holocaust Museum's Law Enforcement and Society Questionnaire.

    3 The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: None given.

    4 Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: FBI National Academy students that represent state and local police and sheriffs' departments, military police organizations, and federal law enforcement agencies from the United States and over 150 foreign nations. Brief Abstract: This collection is requested by FBI National Academy on behalf of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM). As part of the FBI National Academy's 10-week training, law enforcement professionals attend a guided tour at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum lead by the Law Enforcement and Society program (LEAS). The purpose of the tour is to allow law enforcement officers to examine the role of the law enforcement profession and how it played in the Holocaust.

    The purpose of the proposed data collection is to gather feedback from FBI National Academy students about their experience with LEAS during the tour. The results will help determine if the LEAS program is meeting its goals and objectives to better serve future law enforcement professionals participating in the FBI National Academy. In addition, the proposed data collection will be used to ensure the presentations and educational material is current and applicable.

    5 An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: Approximately 1,000 FBI National Academy students per year will receive the questionnaire, and the average time to complete will be about 15 minutes. (The number of students is based on appropriate number of students from fiscal years 2012 -2013). Though we would like a 100% response rate, we anticipate a 75% response rate of those surveyed (or 750); with 25% of the students not responding to the questionnaire.

    6 An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: Given that the approximately 75% of those surveyed (or 750) will respond, the total public burden for completing the questionnaire is 187 hours.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: March 30, 2015. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07554 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 4410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—The Open Group, L.L.C.

    Notice is hereby given that, on March 9, 2015, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), The Open Group, L.L.C. (“TOG”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.

    Specifically, Achmea B.V., Zeist, THE NETHERLANDS; Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, JAPAN; Data-Harmonizing, LLC, Littleton, CO; Dividend Group Corp., Toronto, CANADA; Eon Consulting (Pty) Ltd., Midrand, SOUTH AFRICA; Exostrategies, Inc., Woodland, CO; Exxon Mobil Corporation, Houston, TX; In2itive LLC, Alexandria, VA; Link Consulting, S.A., Lisbon, PORTUGAL; Ministerie van Financien (Belastingdienst), Den Haag, THE NETHERLANDS; Origin Energy, Sydney, AUSTRALIA; Osrodek Studiow nad Cyfrowym Panstwem, Lodz, POLAND, Salesforce.com, Inc., San Francisco, CA; Sensedia, Campinas, BRAZIL; SimVentions, Inc., Fredericksburg, VA; Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX; and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Bloomington, IL, have been added as parties to this venture.

    Also, DARYUS Consulting & Education Center, Sao Paolo, BRAZIL; IB Solutions, Inc., Calgary, CANADA; Motorola Solutions Inc., Schaumburg, IL; Synthetic Spheres Ltd., Solihull, UNITED KINGDOM; and UDEF-IT, L.L.C., New Smyrna Beach, FL, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and TOG intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On April 21, 1997, TOG filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on June 13, 1997 (62 FR 32371).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on November 19, 2014. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on December 16, 2014 (79 FR 74767).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07524 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Petroleum Environmental Research Forum Project No. 2013-07, Stream Speciation Update

    Notice is hereby given that, on February 23, 2015, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), Petroleum Environmental Research Forum Project No. 2013-07, Stream Speciation Update (“PERF Project No. 2013-07”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.

    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company, Fairfax, VA; Chevron U.S.A., Inc., San Ramon, CA; BP Products North America Inc., Naperville, IL; and Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc., Houston, TX. The general area of PERF Project No. 2013-07's planned activity is, through cooperative research efforts, to explore whether sufficient changes in refinery stream compositions have occurred to warrant updating the existing PERF report (API, Refinery Stream Speciation, Publication Number 4723, November 2002). If justified, the project will consider utilizing a combination of Participant data already existing (blinded and de-identified) and/or publicly available company data to update the existing PERF report.

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07526 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

    Notice is hereby given that, on March 10, 2015, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, IEEE has provided an updated list of 60 new standards that have been initiated and 45 existing standards that are being revised. More detail regarding these changes can be found at:

    http://standards.ieee.org/about/sba/jun2014.html http://standards.ieee.org/about/sba/aug2014.html http://standards.ieee.org/about/sba/oct2014.html http://standards.ieee.org/about/sba/dec2014.html http://standards.ieee.org/about/sba/feb2014.html.

    On February 8, 2015, the IEEE Board of Directors approved an update of the IEEE patent policy standards for development, scheduled to become effective on March 15, 2015. The updated policy is available at http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/approved-changes.pdf and, from the effective date, will be available at http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/sec6-7.html.

    On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 3, 2004 (69 FR 64105).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on March 26, 2014. A notice was filed in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on April 30, 2014 (79 FR 24450).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07525 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Comment Request for Information Collection for Reintegration of Ex-Offenders-Adult Reporting System, Extension With Revisions AGENCY:

    Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

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

    Currently, ETA is soliciting comments concerning the information collection request (ICR) to collect data about the extension of the currently approved reporting and recordkeeping system to support the Reintegration of Ex-Offenders-Adult (RExO-Adult) grants, which expires on May 31, 2015.

    Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the ADDRESSES section. Comments must be written to receive consideration, and they will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the final ICR. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number: 1025-0455.

    DATES:

    Submit written comments to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before June 1, 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 by contacting Annie Leonetti, Division of Youth Services—RExO, Room N-4508, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone number: 202-693-2746 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-877-889-5627 (TTY/TDD). Fax: 202-693-3113. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In applying for the Reintegration of Ex-Offender-Adult grants, applicants agree to submit participant data and quarterly aggregate reports for individuals who receive services through RExO-Adult programs and their partnerships with American Job Centers, local Workforce Investment Boards, employment providers, the criminal justice system, and local housing authorities. The reports include aggregate data on demographic characteristics, types of services received, placements, outcomes, and follow-up status. Specifically, they summarize data on participants who received employment and placement services, housing assistance, mentoring, and other services essential to reintegrating ex-offenders through RExO-Adult programs.

    The Department requests an extension of the currently approved information collection to meet the reporting and record-keeping requirements of the Reintegration of Ex-Offenders-Adult grants through an ETA-provided, Web-based Management Information System (MIS). In addition to reporting participant information and performance-related outcomes, RExO-Adult grantees demonstrate their ability to establish effective partnerships with the criminal justice system, local Workforce Investment Boards, local housing authorities, and other partner agencies. They also document the cost effectiveness of their projects. The MIS reporting and record-keeping system incorporates each of these aspects necessary for program evaluation.

    This information collection maintains a reporting and record-keeping system for a minimum level of information collection that is necessary to comply with Equal Opportunity requirements, to hold RExO-Adult grantees appropriately accountable for the Federal funds they receive, including common performance measures, and to allow the Department to fulfill its oversight and management responsibilities.

    II. Review Focus

    The Department is particularly interested in comments which:

    • 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;

    • Valuate 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 submissions of responses.

    III. Current Actions

    Agency: DOL-ETA.

    Type of Review: Extension with Changes—additional data elements.

    Title of Collection: Reintegration of Ex-offenders-Adult Reporting System.

    Form(s): Quarterly Performance Report and Quarterly Narrative Report.

    OMB Control Number: 1205-0455.

    Affected Public: Faith-Based and Community Organizations and State and Local Criminal Justice and Workforce Development Agencies.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 40 Grantees.

    Frequency: Quarterly.

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 160.

    Estimated Average Time per Response: 1.8 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 15,245.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Cost Burden: $0.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours Form/activity Total
  • respondents
  • Frequency Total
  • annual
  • response
  • Average
  • time per
  • response
  • (hours)
  • Total
  • annual
  • burden
  • hours
  • Participant Data Collection 40 Continual 5,625 1.8 10,125 Quarterly narrative progress report 40 Quarterly 160 16 2,560 Quarterly performance report 40 Quarterly 160 16 2,560 Totals 40 5,945 15,245

    We will summarize and/or include in the request for OMB approval of the ICR the comments received in response to this comment request; they will also become a matter of public record.

    Portia Wu, Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training, Labor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07576 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 4510-FT-P
    NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION [NARA-2015-033] Records Schedules; Availability and Request for Comments AGENCY:

    National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when no longer needed for current Government business. They authorize the preservation of records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and the destruction, after a specified period, of records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. Notice is published for records schedules in which agencies propose to destroy records not previously authorized for disposal or reduce the retention period of records already authorized for disposal. NARA invites public comments on such records schedules, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a).

    DATES:

    Requests for copies must be received in writing on or before May 4, 2015. Once the appraisal of the records is completed, NARA will send a copy of the schedule. NARA staff usually prepare appraisal memorandums that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. These, too, may be requested and will be provided once the appraisal is completed. Requesters will be given 30 days to submit comments.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting Records Management Services (ACNR) using one of the following means:

    Mail: NARA (ACNR), 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001.

    Email: [email protected].

    FAX: 301-837-3698.

    Requesters must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency which submitted the schedule, and must provide a mailing address. Those who desire appraisal reports should so indicate in their request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Margaret Hawkins, Director, Records Management Services (ACNR), National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. Telephone: 301-837-1799. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Each year Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. These schedules provide for the timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the disposal of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.

    The schedules listed in this notice are media neutral unless specified otherwise. An item in a schedule is media neutral when the disposition instructions may be applied to records regardless of the medium in which the records are created and maintained. Items included in schedules submitted to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, are media neutral unless the item is limited to a specific medium. (See 36 CFR 1225.12(e).)

    No Federal records are authorized for destruction without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. This approval is granted only after a thorough consideration of their administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private persons directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not they have historical or other value.

    Besides identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this public notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or indicates agency-wide applicability in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency. This notice provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction). It also includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it too includes information about the records. Further information about the disposition process is available on request.

    Schedules Pending

    1. Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense (DAA-0330-2015-0002, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Records relating to planning and managing events including budget, contract, and advertisement files.

    2. Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense (DAA-0330-2015-0003, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system that contains records relating to wounded soldiers recovery programs including personal identifiers, limited injury and medical information, and duty status.

    3. Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense (DAA-0330-2015-0004, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Records relating to injury and unemployment compensation programs including agreements, invoices, and general claim files.

    4. Department of Defense, National Reconnaissance Office (N1-525-12-1, 5 items, 5 temporary items). Administrative records including records relating to human resources, building maintenance, and records management.

    5. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service (DAA-0513-2015-0001, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Internal requests for legal opinions, copies of responses, and background materials.

    6. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (DAA-0560-2013-0007, 5 items, 5 temporary items). Applications, case files, and other records related to a program that allows airports to use private security companies for passenger screening.

    7. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (DAA-0560-2013-0010, 5 items, 5 temporary items). Records related to a training and assessment program for screeners of checked baggage and passenger checkpoints.

    8. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (DAA-0560-2014-0001, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Review and assessment reports of the Explosives Operations Division.

    9. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (DAA-0436-2012-0008, 3 items, 1 temporary item). Non-executive meeting minutes. Proposed for permanent retention are executive meeting minutes and formal policies and operating procedures.

    10. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (DAA-0170-2015-0002, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records received in the course of an investigation upon which no further action is taken.

    11. Department of the Navy, U.S. Marine Corps (DAA-0127-2013-0028, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to collect and manage intelligence images.

    12. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration (DAA-0015-2015-0004, 36 items, 34 temporary items). Records of a research program including project applications and approvals, research data, facility oversight records, and patent records. Proposed for permanent retention are congressional relations files and briefing records.

    13. Environmental Protection Agency, Agency-wide (DAA-0412-2015-0002, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to track cases related to internal labor and employee relations.

    14. National Archives and Records Administration, Government-wide (DAA-GRS-2014-0001, 3 items, 2 temporary items). General Records Schedule for email records. Proposed for permanent retention are email records of senior-level agency officials. A copy of the full review packet may be found on the National Archives Records Express blog (http://blogs.archives.gov/records-express/). A public meeting to solicit comments will be announced at a later date in the Federal Register.

    15. Peace Corps, Director's Office (DAA-0490-2015-0001, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Records of the Office of Compliance including records used to capture and track corrective actions and recommendations. Also included are trend analysis data and working files.

    Dated: March 27, 2015. Paul M. Wester, Jr., Chief Records Officer for the U.S. Government.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07512 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 7515-01-P
    NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request, Proposed Collection: Museums for All program AGENCY:

    Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Foundation for the Arts and the Humanities.

    ACTION:

    Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request

    SUMMARY:

    The Institute of Museum and Library Services announces the following information collection has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.

    A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the CONTACT section below on or before May 1, 2015.

    OMB is particularly interested in comments that help the agency to:

    • 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 submissions of responses.

    ADDRESSES:

    Christopher J. Reich, Senior Advisor, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 1800 M St. NW., 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20036. Mr. Reich can be reached by Telephone: 202-653-4685, Fax: 202-653-4608, or by email at [email protected], or by teletype (TTY/TDD) for persons with hearing difficulty at 202-653-4614.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Institute of Museum and Library Services is the primary source of federal support for the Nation's 123,000 libraries and 35,000 museums. The Institute's mission is to inspire libraries and museums to advance innovation, learning and civic engagement. The Institute works at the national level and in coordination with state and local organizations to sustain heritage, culture, and knowledge; enhance learning and innovation; and support professional development. IMLS is responsible for identifying national needs for and trends in museum, library, and information services; measuring and reporting on the impact and effectiveness of museum, library and information services throughout the United States, including programs conducted with funds made available by IMLS; identifying, and disseminating information on, the best practices of such programs; and developing plans to improve museum, library and information services of the United States and strengthen national, State, local, regional, and international communications and cooperative networks (20 U.S.C. Chapter 72, 20 U.S.C. § 9108).

    The purpose of this collection is to support Museums for All, a voluntary program to increase access to museums for underserved audiences. Through Museums for All, museums allow Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card holders to receive reduced-price admission to their facilities. This information collection will obtain data from participating museums necessary to administer the program, such as institution contact information and a staff person to administer the program. Because this is a new program, additional information will be collected to assess implementation of the program components, the efficacy of Agency supplied materials, and the impact of the program.

    Current Actions: This notice proposes clearance of the Museums for All program. The 60-day notice for the Museums for All program, was published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2014, (FR vol. 79, No. 225, pgs. 69538-69539). The agency has taken into consideration the one comment that was received under this notice.

    Agency: Institute of Museum and Library Services.

    Title: Museums for All.

    OMB Number: To Be Determined.

    Affected Public: The target population is museums that choose to participate in the Museums for All program.

    Number of Respondents: 125 in first year (anticipated).

    Estimated Average Burden per Response: The burden per respondent is estimated to be an average of 60 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 125 hours (that is 60 minutes per respondent times 125 respondents equal 7,500 minutes or 125 hours).

    Total Annualized capital/startup costs: n/a.

    Total Annual costs: $2,663.75 (125 respondents times 1 hour times $21.31/hour equals $2,663.75).

    Contact: Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn.: OMB Desk Officer for Education, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-7316.

    Dated: March 30, 2015. Kim A. Miller, Management Analyst, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07579 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 7036-01-P
    THE NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request, Proposed Collection: Let's Move! Museums & Gardens Program AGENCY:

    Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Foundation for the Arts and the Humanities.

    ACTION:

    Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request.

    SUMMARY:

    The Institute of Museum and Library Services announces the following information collection has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.

    A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the CONTACT section below on or before May 1, 2015.

    OMB is particularly interested in comments that help the agency to:

    • 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 submissions of responses.

    ADDRESSES:

    Christopher J. Reich, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 1800 M Street NW., 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20036. Telephone: (202) 653-4685. Email: [email protected] or by teletype (TTY/TDD) for persons with hearing difficulty at (202) 653-4614.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Institute of Museum and Library Services is the primary source of federal support for the Nation's 123,000 libraries and 35,000 museums. The Institute's mission is to inspire libraries and museums to advance innovation, learning and civic engagement. The Institute works at the national level and in coordination with state and local organizations to sustain heritage, culture, and knowledge; enhance learning and innovation; and support professional development. IMLS is responsible for identifying national needs for and trends in museum, library, and information services; measuring and reporting on the impact and effectiveness of museum, library and information services throughout the United States, including programs conducted with funds made available by IMLS; identifying, and disseminating information on, the best practices of such programs; and developing plans to improve museum, library and information services of the United States and strengthen national, State, local, regional, and international communications and cooperative networks (20 U.S.C. Chapter 72, 20 U.S.C. 9108).

    Abstract: The purpose of this collection is to support a program to provide a targeted public health message in museums and gardens. Using the registration form for Let's Move! Museums & Gardens program (previously known as Let's Move Museums, Let's Move Gardens), IMLS will collect information about participant museums' exhibits, programs, and food service operations that are targeted at fighting childhood obesity. The information will be used to confirm program participation requirements and to share best practices in public health programs.

    Current Actions: This notice proposes clearance of the Let's Move! Museums & Gardens registration form. The 60-day notice for the Let's Move! Museums & Gardens information collection was published in the Federal Register on December 5, 2014, (FR vol. 79, No. 234, pgs. 72214-72215). No comments were received.

    Agency: Institute of Museum and Library Services.

    Title: Let's Move! Museums & Gardens.

    OMB Number: 3137-0084.

    Frequency: Annual.

    Affected Public: Museums, state, local, tribal government and not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents: 50.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 0.17 hours.

    Total Annual Costs to Respondents: $164.

    Total Annualized to Federal Government: $4,615.

    Contact: Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn.: OMB Desk Officer for Education, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-7316.

    Dated: March 30, 2015. Kim A. Miller, Management Analyst, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07611 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 7036-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74598; File No. SR-BATS-2015-24] Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees for the BATS One Market Data Product March 27, 2015.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on March 17, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

    4 7 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the market data section of its fee schedule to: (i) Establish a Digital Media Enterprise Fee for the BATS One Feed; and (ii) make a non-substantive change to the description of the BATS One Feed Enterprise fee.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to amend the market data section of its fee schedule to: (i) Establish a Digital Media Enterprise Fee for the BATS One Feed; and (ii) make a non-substantive change to the description of the BATS One Feed Enterprise fee.5

    5 The Exchange notes that the date of the fee schedule was amended to March 17, 2015 in a previously filed proposed rule change. See SR-BATS-2015-23 (filed March 17, 2015).

    The Commission recently approved a proposed rule change by the Exchange to establish a new market data product called the BATS One Feed 6 as well as published proposed rule changes to establish related fees.7 The BATS One Feed is a data feed that disseminates, on a real-time basis, the aggregate best bid and offer (“BBO”) of all displayed orders for securities traded on BZX and its affiliated exchanges 8 and for which the BATS Exchanges report quotes under the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) Plan or the Nasdaq/UTP Plan.9 The BATS One Feed also contains the individual last sale information for the BATS Exchanges (collectively with the aggregate BBO, the “BATS One Summary Feed”). In addition, the BATS One Feed contains optional functionality which enables recipients to receive aggregated two-sided quotations from the BATS Exchanges for up to five (5) price levels (“BATS One Premium Feed”).

    6See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73918 (December 23, 2014), 79 FR 78920 (December 31, 2014) (File Nos. SR-EDGX-2014-25; SR-EDGA-2014-25; SR-BATS-2014-055; SR-BYX-2014-030) (Notice of Amendments No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, to Establish a New Market Data Product called the BATS One Feed) (“BATS One Approval Order”).

    7See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74282 (February 17, 2015), 80 FR 9487 (February 23, 2015) (SR-EDGX-2015-09); 74283 (February 18, 2015), 80 FR 9809 (February 24, 2015) (SR-EDGA-2015-09); 74284 (February 18, 2015), 80 FR 9792 (February 24, 2015) (SR-BYX-2015-09); and 74285 (February 18, 2015), 80 FR 9828 (February 24, 2015) (SR-BATS-2015-11) (“BATS One Fee Proposals”).

    8 BZX's affiliated exchanges are EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”), EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”), and BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (“BYX”, together with EDGX, EDGA, and BZX, the “BATS Exchanges”). On January 23, 2014, BATS Global Markets, Inc. (“BGMI”), the former parent company of the Exchange and BYX, completed its business combination with Direct Edge Holdings LLC, the parent company of EDGA and EDGX. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71375 (January 23, 2014), 79 FR 4771 (January 29, 2014) (SR-BATS-2013-059; SR-BYX-2013-039). Upon completion of the business combination, DE Holdings and BGMI each became intermediate holding companies, held under a single new holding company. The new holding company, formerly named “BATS Global Markets Holdings, Inc.,” changed its name to “BATS Global Markets, Inc.” and BGMI changed its name to “BATS Global Markets Holdings, Inc.”

    9 The Exchange understands that each of the BATS Exchanges will separately file substantially similar proposed rule changes with the Commission to implement fees for the BATS One Feed.

    BATS One Digital Media Enterprise Fee

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to establish a Digital Media Enterprise Fee of $15,000 per month for the BATS One Summary Feed and $25,000 per month for the BATS One Premium Feed. As an alternative to User fees,10 a recipient firm may purchase a monthly Digital Media Enterprise license to receive the BATS One Feed from an External Distributor 11 to distribute to an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users 12 for viewing via television, Web sites, and mobile devices for informational and non-trading purposes only without having to account for the extent of access to the data or the report the number of Users to the Exchange. The Digital Media Enterprise Fee would be in addition to the Data Consolidation Fee.13

    10 The Exchange assesses a monthly fee for Professional Users of $10.00 per User for receipt of the BATS One Summary Feed or $15.00 per User who elects to also receive the BATS One Premium Feed. Non-Professional Users are assessed a monthly fee of $0.25 per user for the BATS One Summary Feed or $0.50 per user for the BATS One Premium Feed. External Distributors must count every Professional User and Non-Professional User to which they provide BATS One Feed data. See BATS One Fee Proposals, supra note 7.

    11 As defined in the Exchange's fee schedule, an External Distributor of an Exchange Market Data product is a Distributor that receives the Exchange Market Data product and then distributes that data to a third party or one or more Users outside the Distributor's own entity.

    12 As defined in the Exchange's fee schedule, a User of an Exchange Market Data product is a natural person, a proprietorship, corporation, partnership, or entity, or device (computer or other automated service), that is entitled to receive Exchange data. A Non-Professional User of an Exchange Market Data product is a natural person who is not: (i) Registered or qualified in any capacity with the Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, any state securities agency, any securities exchange or association, or any commodities or futures contract market or association; (ii) engaged as an “investment adviser” as that term is defined in Section 201(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (whether or not registered or qualified under that Act); or (iii) employed by a bank or other organization exempt from registration under federal or state securities laws to perform functions that would require registration or qualification if such functions were performed for an organization not so exempt. A Professional User of an Exchange Market Data product is any User other than a Non-Professional User.

    13 The Data Consolidation Fee is $1,000 per month and is designed to reflect the value of the aggregation and consolidation function the Exchange performs in creating the BATS One Feed. See BATS One Fee Proposals, supra note 7.

    Non-Substantive Change to the Description of the BATS One Enterprise Fee

    The Exchange proposes a non-substantive change to the description of the BATS One Enterprise fee. The fee schedule currently states that, “[a]s an alternative to User fees, a recipient firm may purchase a monthly Enterprise Fee to receive the BATS One Feed from an External Distributor for an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users.” The Exchange proposes to amend this sentence in two ways. The first amendment is to state that a recipient firm may purchase a monthly Enterprise license, rather than Enterprise fee, as the term “license” is a more accurate description. The second is to specify that the recipient firm purchasing a monthly enterprise license does so to distribute the BATS One Feed to an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users.

    2. Statutory Basis BATS One Digital Media Enterprise Fee

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Digital Media Enterprise Fee for the BATS One Feed is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,14 in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,15 in particular, in that it provides for an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among recipients of the data and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act 16 in that it supports (i) fair competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange markets, and between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets and (ii) the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities. Furthermore, the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 603 of Regulation NMS,17 which provides that any national securities exchange that distributes information with respect to quotations for or transactions in an NMS stock do so on terms that are not unreasonably discriminatory. In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data products to the public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data.

    14 15 U.S.C. 78f.

    15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    16 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.

    17See 17 CFR 242.603.

    In addition, the proposed fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply uniformly to market data vendors, television broadcasters, Web site and mobile service providers. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to establish a lower cost fee structure that is designed to facilitate broader media distribution of the BATS One Data Feed for informational purposes because it will benefit investors generally.

    In establishing the Digital Media Enterprise Fee, the Exchange recognizes that there is demand for a more seamless and easier-to-administer data distribution mode that takes into account the expanded variety of media and communication devices that investors utilize today. The Exchange believes the Digital Media Enterprise Fee will be easy to administer because data recipients that purchase it would not be required to differentiate between Professional and Non-Professional Users, account for the extent of access to the data, or report the number of Users. This is a significant reduction on a recipient firm's administrative burdens and is a significant value to investors. For example, a television broadcaster could display the BATS One Feed data during market-related programming and on its Web site or allow viewers to view the data via their mobile devices, creating a more seamless distribution model that will allow investors more choice in how they receive and view market data, all without having to account for and/or measure who accesses the data and how often they do so.

    The proposed Digital Media Enterprise Fee is equitable and reasonable because it will also enable recipient firms to more widely distribute data from the BATS One Feed to investors for informational purposes at a lower cost than is available today. For example, a recipient firm may purchase an Enterprise license in the amount of $50,000 per month for the BATS One Summary Feed and $100,000 per month for the BATS One Premium Feed to receive the BATS One Feed from an External Distributor for an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users, which is greater than the Digital Media Enterprise fee proposed herein. The Exchange also believes the amount of the Digital Enterprise [sic] is reasonable as compared to the existing Enterprise fees discussed above because the distribution of BATS One Feed data is limited to television, Web sites, and mobile devices for informational purposes only, while distribution of the BATS One Feed data pursuant to an Enterprise license contains no such limitation. The Exchange also believes that the proposed Digital Media Enterprise fee is equitable and reasonable because it is less than similar fees charged by other exchanges.18

    18 The Nasdaq Stock Market offers proprietary data products for distribution over the internet and television under alternative fee schedules that are subject to maximum fee of $50,000 per month. See Nasdaq Rule 7039(b). The NYSE charges a Digit Media Enterprise fee of $40,000 per month for the NYSE Trade Digital Media product. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69272 (April 2, 2013), 78 FR 20983 (April 8, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-23).

    The Exchange has taken into consideration its affiliated relationship with BYX, EDGA, and EDGX in proposing the Digital Media Enterprise fee to assure that vendors would be able to offer a similar product on the same terms as the Exchange from a cost perspective. While the BATS Exchanges are the exclusive distributors of the individual data feeds from which certain data elements may be taken to create the BATS One Feed, they are not the exclusive distributors of the aggregated and consolidated information that comprises the BATS One Feed. As discussed in in the BATS One Fee Proposal,19 any entity may separately purchase the individual underlying products, and if they so choose, perform a similar aggregation and consolidation function that the Exchange performs in creating the BATS One Feed, and offer a data feed with the same information included in the BATS One Feed to sell and distribute it to its clients with no greater cost than the Exchange.

    19See BATS One Fee Proposals, supra note 7.

    To enable such competition, the Exchange is offering the Digital Media Enterprise license for the BATS One Feed on terms that a subscriber of the underlying feeds could offer a competing product if it so chooses. The BATS One Feed is comprised of data included in EDGX Depth, EDGA Depth, BYX Depth, and BZX Depth.20 Currently, an External Distributor could create a competing product to the BATS One Premium Feed 21 by purchasing each of these depth of book products from the individual BATS Exchanges and then performing its own aggregation and consolidation functions. The combined External Distributor fees for these individual data feeds of the BATS Exchanges is $12,500 per month.22 An External Distributor that seeks to create a competing product to the BATS One Summary Feed could instead subscribe to the following data feeds: EDGX Top, EDGX Last Sale, EDGA Top, EDGA Last Sale, BZX Top, BZX Last Sale, BYX Top, and BYX Last Sale,23 and then perform their own aggregation and consolidation function. The combined External Distributor fees for these individual data feeds of the BATS Exchanges is $5,000 per month.24 The Exchange proposes to charge a Digital Media Enterprise Fee ($15,000 per month for the BATS One Summary Feed and $25,000 per month for the BATS One Premium Feed, plus the $1,000 per month Data Consolidation fee) that exceeds the combined External Distributor fees for each of the individual feeds listed above to ensure that vendors could compete with the Exchange by creating the same product as the BATS One Feed to sell to their clients at no greater cost than the Exchange.

    20See EDGA Rule 13.8, EDGX Rule 13.8, BZX Rule 11.22(a) and (c), and BYX Rule 11.22 (a) and (c) for a description of the depth of book feeds offered by each of the BATS Exchanges.

    21 Like the Exchange, an External Distributor would also be able to create a competing product to the BATS One Summary Feed from the data received via EDGX Depth, EDGA Depth, BYX Depth, and BZX Depth, without having to separately purchase the top and last sale feeds from each of the BATS Exchanges.

    22 The monthly External Distributor fee is $2,500 per month for EDGX Depth, $2,500 per month for EDGA Depth, $2,500 for BYX Depth, and $5,000 for BZX Depth.

    23See supra note 6. See also BATS Rule 11.22(d) and (g).

    24 The monthly External Distributor fee is $1,250 per month for EDGX Top and EDGX Last Sale (as proposed herein), free for EDGA Top and EDGA Last Sale, $1,250 for BYX Top and BYX Last Sale, and $2,500 for BZX Top and BZX Last Sale. See BATS One Fee Proposals, supra note 7.

    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010), upheld the Commission's reliance upon the existence of competitive market mechanisms to set reasonable and equitably allocated fees for proprietary market data.

    In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'

    Id. at 535 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229 at 92 (1975), as reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 323). The court agreed with the Commission's conclusion that “Congress intended that `competitive forces should dictate the services and practices that constitute the U.S. national market system for trading equity securities.' ” 25

    25NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 535.

    As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on Competition, the Exchange believes that there is substantial evidence of competition in the marketplace for data and that the Commission can rely upon such evidence in concluding that the fees established in this filing are the product of competition and therefore satisfy the relevant statutory standards.26 In addition, the existence of alternatives to the BATS One Feed, including real-time consolidated data, free delayed consolidated data, and proprietary last sale data from other sources, as described below, further ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and users can elect such alternatives.

    26 Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) amended paragraph (A) of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3), to make clear that all exchange fees for market data may be filed by exchanges on an immediately effective basis.

    As the NetCoalition decision noted, the Commission is not required to undertake a cost-of-service or ratemaking approach, and the Exchange incorporates by reference into this proposed rule change its affiliate's [sic] analysis of this topic in another rule filing.27

    27See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63291 (Nov. 9, 2010), 75 FR 70311 (November 17, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-97).

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.

    Non-Substantive Change to the Description of the BATS One Enterprise Fee

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to the BATS One Enterprise Fee is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,28 in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,29 in particular, in that it provides for an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among recipients of the data and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or dealers. The proposal to amend the description of the Enterprise fee within the fee schedule is equitable and reasonable because the changes are designed to clarify the fee schedule and avoid potential investor confusion. The proposed changes do not amend the amount or application of the BATS One Enterprise fee. The proposed changes are also non-discriminatory as they would apply to all recipient firms uniformly [sic].

    28 15 U.S.C. 78f.

    29 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

    BATS One Digital Media Enterprise Fee

    The BATS One Feed Digital Media Enterprise fee will enhance competition because it provides investors with an alternative option for receiving market data and competes directly with similar market data products currently offered by the NYSE and Nasdaq.30 The Exchange notes that there is already actual competition for products similar to the BATS One Feed. The NYSE offers BQT which provides BBO and last sale information for the NYSE, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. and NYSE MKT LLC.31 Nasdaq offers Nasdaq Basic, a filed market data product, and through its affiliate, offers NLS Plus which provides a unified view of last sale information similar to the BATS One Feed.32 The existence of these competing data products demonstrates that there is ample, existing competition for products such as the BATS One Feed and the fees associated by such products is constrained by competition.

    30See Nasdaq Basic, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=nasdaqbasic (last visited May 29, 2014) (data feed offering the BBO and Last Sale information for all U.S. exchange-listed securities based on liquidity within the Nasdaq market center, as well as trades reported to the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility (“TRF”)); Nasdaq NLS Plus, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=NLSplus (last visited July 8, 2014) (data feed providing last sale data as well as consolidated volume from the following Nasdaq OMX markets for U.S. exchange-listed securities: Nasdaq, FINRA/Nasdaq TRF, Nasdaq OMX BX, and Nasdaq OMX PSX); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73553 (November 6, 2014), 79 FR 67491 (November 13, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-40) (Notice of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No.1, To Establish the NYSE Best Quote & Trades (“BQT”) Data Feed); http://www.nyxdata.com/Data-Products/NYSE-Best-Quote-and-Trades (last visited May 27, 2014) (data feed providing unified view of BBO and last sale information for the NYSE, NYSE Arca, and NYSE MKT).

    31Id.

    32Id.

    In establishing the proposed fees, the Exchange considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that it has considered all relevant factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees among all Users. The existence of alternatives to the BATS One Feed, including the existing underlying feeds, consolidated data, and proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data product if its cost to purchase is not justified by the returns any particular vendor or subscriber would achieve through the purchase.

    Finally, although the BATS Exchanges are the exclusive distributors of the individual data feeds from which certain data elements would be taken to create the BATS One Feed, the Exchange is not the exclusive distributor of the aggregated and consolidated information that would compose the BATS One Feed. The Exchange has taken into consideration its affiliated relationship with BYX, EDGA, and EDGX in its design of the BATS One Feed to assure that vendors would be able to offer a similar product on the same terms as the Exchange from a cost perspective. While the BATS Exchanges are the exclusive distributors of the individual data feeds from which certain data elements may be taken to create the BATS One Feed, they are not the exclusive distributors of the aggregated and consolidated information that comprises the BATS One Feed. As discussed in in [sic] the BATS One Fee Proposal,33 any entity may separately purchase the individual underlying products, and if they so choose, perform a similar aggregation and consolidation function that the Exchange performs in creating the BATS One Feed, and offer a data feed with the same information included in the BATS One Feed to sell and distribute it to its clients with no greater cost than the Exchange.

    33See BATS One Fee Proposals, supra note 7.

    To enable such competition, the amount of the proposed Digital Media Enterprise license compared to the cost of the individual data feeds from the BATS Exchanges would enable a vendor to receive the underlying data feeds and offer a similar product on a competitive basis and with no greater cost than the Exchange. The amount of the proposed Digital Media Enterprise license, coupled with the Data Consolidation Fee, is not lower than the cost to a vendor of receiving the underlying data feeds to create a competing product. Therefore, the amount of the proposed Digital Media Enterprise license the Exchange would charge clients for the BATS One Feed compared to the cost of the individual data feeds from the BATS Exchanges would enable a vendor to receive the underlying data feeds and offer a similar product on a competitive basis and with no greater cost than the Exchange.

    Non-Substantive Change to the Description of the BATS One Enterprise Fee

    The proposal to amend the description of the Enterprise fee within the fee schedule will not have any impact on completion [sic]. The proposed changes are designed to clarify the fee schedule and avoid potential investor confusion and do not amend the amount or application of the BATS One Enterprise fee.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 34 and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.35 At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

    34 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    35 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-BATS-2015-24 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2015-24. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2015-24, and should be submitted on or before April 23, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.36

    36 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07519 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74595; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2015-04] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the Innovator IBD® 50 Fund Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 March 27, 2015.

    On January 30, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the Innovator IBD® 50 Fund (“Fund”). On February 12, 2015, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, which amended and replaced the proposal in its entirety. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on February 20, 2015.3 No comments on the proposal have been received. This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74278 (February 13, 2015), 80 FR 9294.

    I. The Exchange's Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange. The Shares will be offered by Academy Funds Trust (the “Trust”), an open-end management investment company.4 The Fund will issue and sell Shares only in “Creation Unit” size at the NAV next determined after receipt, on any business day, of an order in proper form.5

    4 The Trust is registered under the 1940 Act. On October 9, 2014 and on December 19, 2014, the Trust filed with the Commission amendments to its registration statement on Form N-1A under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a) (“Securities Act”) and under the 1940 Act relating to the Fund (File Nos. 333-146827 and 811-22135) (“Registration Statement”). In addition, the Commission has issued an order granting certain exemptive relief to the Trust under the 1940 Act. See Investment Company Act Release No. 31248 (September 9, 2014) (File No. 812-14308) (“Exemptive Order”).

    5 A Creation Unit consists of 25,000 Shares, and the size of a Creation Unit is subject to change. See Notice, supra note 3, 80 FR at 9296.

    The investment adviser to the Fund will be Innovator Management LLC (the “Adviser”). Penserra Capital Management LLC will be the Fund's sub-adviser (“Sub-Adviser”). Neither the Adviser nor the Sub-Adviser is registered as a broker-dealer. The Adviser is not affiliated with a broker-dealer. The Sub-Adviser is affiliated with a broker-dealer and has implemented a “fire wall” with respect to such broker-dealer regarding access to information concerning the composition of or changes to the Fund's portfolio.6 U.S. Bank, N.A.(the “Administrator” or “Custodian”) will serve as the administrator, custodian and transfer agent for the Fund. Quasar Distributors, LLC will be the principal underwriter and distributor of the Shares.

    6 Commentary .06 to Rule 8.600 provides that, if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio. In addition, Commentary .06 requires that personnel who make decisions on the open-end fund's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding the open-end fund's portfolio. Commentary .06 to Rule 8.600 is similar to Commentary .03(a)(i) and (iii) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3); however, Commentary .06 in connection with the establishment of a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer reflects the applicable open-end fund's portfolio, not an underlying benchmark index, as is the case with index-based funds. The Exchange states that, in the event (a) the Adviser or the Sub-Adviser becomes a registered broker-dealer or becomes newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser or any sub-adviser is a registered broker-dealer or becomes affiliated with a broker-dealer, it will implement a fire wall with respect to its relevant personnel or its broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio, and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding such portfolio.

    The investment objective of the Fund will be to seek long-term capital appreciation. Under normal circumstances,7 the Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets in companies included in the IBD® 50 Index (“Index”) and in U.S. exchange-traded equities.8 Typically, the Fund will hold U.S. exchange-traded common stocks as well as U.S. exchange-traded master limited partnerships (“MLPs”), real estate investment trusts (“REITs”), royalty trusts and business development companies (“BDCs”). It will invest primarily in U.S. equity securities but may, to a lesser extent, invest in equity securities of foreign companies in both developed and emerging markets, generally through American depositary receipts (“ADRs”). The Fund may invest in companies of any size.

    7 The term “under normal circumstances” means, without limitation, the absence of extreme volatility or trading halts in the equity markets or the financial markets generally; operational issues causing dissemination of inaccurate market information; or force majeure type events such as systems failure, natural or man-made disaster, act of God, armed conflict, act of terrorism, riot or labor disruption or any similar intervening circumstance.

    8 The Index is a computer-generated stock index published by Investor's Business Daily® (“IBD®”). IBD® uses proprietary fundamental and technical ratings to compile what IBD® considers the 50 leading growth companies that trade on U.S. national securities exchanges. Companies included in the Index must meet minimum earnings, sales, profit margin, volume and technical requirements.

    Other Portfolio Holdings. The Fund may invest in money market securities for liquidity and cash management purposes or if the Adviser or Sub-Adviser determines that securities meeting the Fund's investment objective and policies are not otherwise readily available for purchase. Money market securities include (i) short-term U.S. government securities; (ii) commercial paper rated in the highest short-term rating category by a nationally recognized statistical ratings organization (“NRSRO”), such as Standard & Poor's or Moody's, or determined by the Adviser or Sub-Adviser to be of comparable quality at the time of purchase; (iii) short-term bank obligations (certificates of deposit, time deposits and bankers' acceptances) of U.S. domestic banks, foreign banks and foreign branches of domestic banks, and commercial banks with assets of at least $1 billion as of the end of their most recent fiscal year; (iv) repurchase agreements involving such securities; and (v) money market mutual funds.

    The Fund may invest in securities of other investment companies (other than BDCs), including shares of the following: (1) Exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”), unit investment trusts, and closed-end investment companies, each of which will be listed and traded on a U.S. national securities exchange, and (2) non-exchange-listed open-end investment companies.

    II. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.9 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission also finds that the proposal to list and trade the Shares on the Exchange is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, which sets forth Congress's finding that it is in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets to assure the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information with respect to quotations for, and transactions in, securities.

    9 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    Quotation and last-sale information for the Shares and U.S. exchange-listed equity securities will be available via the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) high-speed line, and will be available from the national securities exchange on which they are listed.10 The Exchange represents that intra-day and closing price information relating to the investments of the Fund will be available from major market data vendors and from securities exchanges, as applicable.11 Further, the Portfolio Indicative Value, as defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(c)(3), based on current information regarding the value of the securities and other assets in the Disclosed Portfolio, will be widely disseminated at least every 15 seconds during the Core Trading Session by one or more major market data vendors.12 The Custodian, through the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) will make available on each business day, prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m., Eastern time), the list of the names and the required number of shares of each Deposit Security to be included in the current Fund Deposit 13 (based on information at the end of the previous business day) for the Fund.14 In addition, a basket composition file, which includes the security names and share quantities (as applicable) required to be delivered in exchange for Shares, together with estimates and actual cash components, will be publicly disseminated daily prior to the opening of the NYSE via the NSCC.15 The NAV of the Fund will be calculated at the close of regular trading (ordinarily 4:00 p.m. Eastern time) every day the New York Stock Exchange is open for trading.16 Information regarding market price and trading of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services.17 Information regarding the previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers.18

    10See Notice, supra note 3, 80 FR at 9298.

    11See id. Price information regarding money market mutual funds will be available from on-line sources and from the Web site for the applicable fund. See id.

    12 The Exchange understands that several major market data vendors display or make widely available Portfolio Indicative Values taken from CTA or other data feeds. See id., n.26.

    13 The “Fund Deposit” is the consideration for purchase of Creation Units of the Fund, which generally will consist of the in-kind deposit of a designated portfolio of equity securities and an amount of cash. See id. at 9296-97.

    14See id. at 9297.

    15See id. at 9298.

    16See id. at 9296.

    17See id. at 9298.

    18See id.

    The Commission further believes that the proposal to list and trade the Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. The Commission notes that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share of the Fund will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, trading in the Shares would be subject to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(d)(2)(D), which set forth circumstances under which trading in the Shares may be halted. Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable.19 Further, the Commission notes that the Adviser, as the Reporting Authority, that provides the Disclosed Portfolio must implement and maintain, or be subject to, procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material, non-public information regarding the actual components of the Fund's portfolio.20 In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and underlying exchange-traded equity securities from markets and other entities that are members of Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.21 The Exchange represents that it prohibits the distribution of material non-public information by its employees. The Exchange represents that the Adviser is not a registered broker-dealer and is not affiliated with any broker-dealers. The Exchange represents that the Sub-Adviser is affiliated with a broker-dealer and has implemented a “fire wall” with respect to such broker-dealer regarding access to information concerning the composition of or changes to the Fund's portfolio.22

    19 These may include: (1) The extent to which trading is not occurring in the securities and/or the financial instruments comprising the Disclosed Portfolio of the Fund; or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. See id.

    20See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(d)(2)(B)(ii).

    21 For a list of the current members of ISG, see www.isgportal.org. The Exchange notes that not all components of the Disclosed Portfolio for the Fund may trade on markets that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.

    22 The Exchange also represents that, in the event that (a) the Adviser or the Sub-Adviser becomes a registered broker-dealer or becomes newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser or any sub-adviser is a registered broker-dealer or becomes affiliated with a broker-dealer, it will implement a fire wall with respect to its relevant personnel or its broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio, and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding such portfolio. See Notice, supra note 3, 80 FR at 9300.

    The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Additionally, in support of its proposal, the Exchange has made the following representations:

    (1) The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600.

    (2) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.

    (3) The Exchange has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.

    (4) Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and underlying exchange-traded equity securities with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares, underlying exchange-traded equity securities, from such markets and other entities.

    (5) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an Information Bulletin (“Bulletin”) of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Unit aggregations (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its Equity Trading Permit Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (3) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated Portfolio Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (4) how information regarding the Portfolio Indicative Value is disseminated; (5) the requirement that Equity Trading Permit Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (6) trading information.

    (6) The Exchange represents that, for initial and continued listing, the Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 23 under the Act, as provided by NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.3.

    23 17 CFR 240.10A-3.

    (7) The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets (calculated at the time of investment) in assets deemed illiquid by the Adviser, consistent with Commission guidance.

    (8) A minimum of 100,000 Shares of each Fund will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange.

    (9) Not more than 10% of the net assets of the Fund in the aggregate invested in exchange-traded equity securities shall consist of equity securities whose principal market is not a member of the ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.

    (10) The Fund will not invest in options, futures contracts or swaps agreements.

    (11) The Fund will not invest in leveraged or inverse leveraged (e.g., 2X, −2X, 3X or −3X) ETFs.

    This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations and description of the Funds.

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.

    III. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2015-04), as modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved.

    24 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.24

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07517 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74600; File No. SR-EDGA-2015-14] Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees for the BATS One Market Data Product March 27, 2015.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on March 17, 2015, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the market data section of its fee schedule to: (i) Establish a Digital Media Enterprise Fee for the BATS One Feed; and (ii) make a non-substantive change to the description of the BATS One Feed Enterprise fee.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to amend the market data section of its fee schedule to: (i) Establish a Digital Media Enterprise Fee for the BATS One Feed; and (ii) make a non-substantive change to the description of the BATS One Feed Enterprise fee.

    The Commission recently approved a proposed rule change by the Exchange to establish a new market data product called the BATS One Feed 5 as well as published proposed rule changes to establish related fees.6 The BATS One Feed is a data feed that disseminates, on a real-time basis, the aggregate best bid and offer (“BBO”) of all displayed orders for securities traded on EDGA and its affiliated exchanges 7 and for which the BATS Exchanges report quotes under the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) Plan or the Nasdaq/UTP Plan.8 The BATS One Feed also contains the individual last sale information for the BATS Exchanges (collectively with the aggregate BBO, the “BATS One Summary Feed”). In addition, the BATS One Feed contains optional functionality which enables recipients to receive aggregated two-sided quotations from the BATS Exchanges for up to five (5) price levels (“BATS One Premium Feed”).

    5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73918 (December 23, 2014), 79 FR 78920 (December 31, 2014) (File Nos. SR-EDGX-2014-25; SR-EDGA-2014-25; SR-BATS-2014-055; SR-BYX-2014-030) (Notice of Amendments No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, to Establish a New Market Data Product called the BATS One Feed) (“BATS One Approval Order”).

    6See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74282 (February 17, 2015), 80 FR 9487 (February 23, 2015) (SR-EDGX-2015-09); 74283 (February 18, 2015), 80 FR 9809 (February 24, 2015) (SR-EDGA-2015-09); 74284 (February 18, 2015), 80 FR 9792 (February 24, 2015) (SR-BYX-2015-09); and 74285 (February 18, 2015), 80 FR 9828 (February 24, 2015) (SR-BATS-2015-11) (“BATS One Fee Proposals”).

    7 EDGA's affiliated exchanges are BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”), BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (“BYX”), and EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”, together with EDGA, BZX, and BYX, the “BATS Exchanges”). On January 31, 2014, Direct Edge Holdings LLC (“DE Holdings”), the former parent company of the Exchange and EDGX, completed its business combination with BATS Global Markets, Inc., the parent company of BZX and BYX. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71449 (January 30, 2014), 79 FR 6961 (February 5, 2014) (SR-EDGX-2013-43, SR-EDGA-2014-34). Upon completion of the business combination, DE Holdings and BATS Global Markets, Inc. each became intermediate holding companies, held under a single new holding company. The new holding company, formerly named “BATS Global Markets Holdings, Inc.,” changed its name to “BATS Global Markets, Inc.”

    8 The Exchange understands that each of the BATS Exchanges will separately file substantially similar proposed rule changes with the Commission to implement fees for the BATS One Feed.

    BATS One Digital Media Enterprise Fee

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to establish a Digital Media Enterprise Fee of $15,000 per month for the BATS One Summary Feed and $25,000 per month for the BATS One Premium Feed. As an alternative to User fees,9 a recipient firm may purchase a monthly Digital Media Enterprise license to receive the BATS One Feed from an External Distributor 10 to distribute to an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users 11 for viewing via television, Web sites, and mobile devices for informational and non-trading purposes only without having to account for the extent of access to the data or the report the number of Users to the Exchange. The Digital Media Enterprise Fee would be in addition to the Data Consolidation Fee.12

    9 The Exchange assesses a monthly fee for Professional Users of $10.00 per User for receipt of the BATS One Summary Feed or $15.00 per User who elects to also receive the BATS One Premium Feed. Non-Professional Users are assessed a monthly fee of $0.25 per user for the BATS One Summary Feed or $0.50 per user for the BATS One Premium Feed. External Distributors must count every Professional User and Non-Professional User to which they provide BATS One Feed data. See BATS One Fee Proposals, supra note 6.

    10 As defined in the Exchange's fee schedule, an External Distributor of an Exchange Market Data product is a Distributor that receives the Exchange Market Data product and then distributes that data to a third party or one or more Users outside the Distributor's own entity.

    11 As defined in the Exchange's fee schedule, a User of an Exchange Market Data product is a natural person, a proprietorship, corporation, partnership, or entity, or device (computer or other automated service), that is entitled to receive Exchange data. A Non-Professional User of an Exchange Market Data product is a natural person who is not: (i) Registered or qualified in any capacity with the Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, any state securities agency, any securities exchange or association, or any commodities or futures contract market or association; (ii) engaged as an “investment adviser” as that term is defined in Section 201(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (whether or not registered or qualified under that Act); or (iii) employed by a bank or other organization exempt from registration under federal or state securities laws to perform functions that would require registration or qualification if such functions were performed for an organization not so exempt. A Professional User of an Exchange Market Data product is any User other than a Non-Professional User.

    12 The Data Consolidation Fee is $1,000 per month and is designed to reflect the value of the aggregation and consolidation function the Exchange performs in creating the BATS One Feed. See BATS One Fee Proposals, supra note 6.

    Non-Substantive Change to the Description of the BATS One Enterprise Fee

    The Exchange proposes a non-substantive change to the description of the BATS One Enterprise fee. The fee schedule currently states that, “[a]s an alternative to User fees, a recipient firm may purchase a monthly Enterprise Fee to receive the BATS One Feed from an External Distributor for an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users.” The Exchange proposes to amend this sentence in two ways. The first amendment is to state that a recipient firm may purchase a monthly Enterprise license, rather than Enterprise fee, as the term “license” is a more accurate description. The second is to specify that the recipient firm purchasing a monthly enterprise license does so to distribute the BATS One Feed to an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users.

    2. Statutory Basis BATS One Digital Media Enterprise Fee

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Digital Media Enterprise Fee for the BATS One Feed is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,13 in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,14 in particular, in that it provides for an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among recipients of the data and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act 15 in that it supports (i) fair competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange markets, and between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets and (ii) the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities. Furthermore, the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 603 of Regulation NMS,16 which provides that any national securities exchange that distributes information with respect to quotations for or transactions in an NMS stock do so on terms that are not unreasonably discriminatory. In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data products to the public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data.

    13 15 U.S.C. 78f.

    14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    15 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.

    16See 17 CFR 242.603.

    In addition, the proposed fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply uniformly to market data vendors, television broadcasters, Web site and mobile service providers. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to establish a lower cost fee structure that is designed to facilitate broader media distribution of the BATS One Data Feed for informational purposes because it will benefit investors generally.

    In establishing the Digital Media Enterprise Fee, the Exchange recognizes that there is demand for a more seamless and easier-to-administer data distribution mode that takes into account the expanded variety of media and communication devices that investors utilize today. The Exchange believes the Digital Media Enterprise Fee will be easy to administer because data recipients that purchase it would not be required to differentiate between Professional and Non-Professional Users, account for the extent of access to the data, or report the number of Users. This is a significant reduction on a recipient firm's administrative burdens and is a significant value to investors. For example, a television broadcaster could display the BATS One Feed data during market-related programming and on its Web site or allow viewers to view the data via their mobile devices, creating a more seamless distribution model that will allow investors more choice in how they receive and view market data, all without having to account for and/or measure who accesses the data and how often they do so.

    The proposed Digital Media Enterprise Fee is equitable and reasonable because it will also enable recipient firms to more widely distribute data from the BATS One Feed to investors for informational purposes at a lower cost than is available today. For example, a recipient firm may purchase an Enterprise license in the amount of $50,000 per month for the BATS One Summary Feed and $100,000 per month for the BATS One Premium Feed to receive the BATS One Feed from an External Distributor for an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users, which is greater than the Digital Media Enterprise fee proposed herein. The Exchange also believes the amount of the Digital Enterprise [sic] is reasonable as compared to the existing Enterprise fees discussed above because the distribution of BATS One Feed data is limited to television, Web sites, and mobile devices for informational purposes only, while distribution of the BATS One Feed data pursuant to an Enterprise license contains no such limitation. The Exchange also believes that the proposed Digital Media Enterprise fee is equitable and reasonable because it is less than similar fees charged by other exchanges.17

    17 The Nasdaq Stock Market offers proprietary data products for distribution over the internet and television under alternative fee schedules that are subject to maximum fee of $50,000 per month. See Nasdaq Rule 7039(b). The NYSE charges a Digit Media Enterprise fee of $40,000 per month for the NYSE Trade Digital Media product. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69272 (April 2, 2013), 78 FR 20983 (April 8, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-23).

    The Exchange has taken into consideration its affiliated relationship with EDGX, BYX, and BZX in proposing the Digital Media Enterprise fee to assure that vendors would be able to offer a similar product on the same terms as the Exchange from a cost perspective. While the BATS Exchanges are the exclusive distributors of the individual data feeds from which certain data elements may be taken to create the BATS One Feed, they are not the exclusive distributors of the aggregated and consolidated information that comprises the BATS One Feed. As discussed in in [sic] the BATS One Fee Proposal,18 any entity may separately purchase the individual underlying products, and if they so choose, perform a similar aggregation and consolidation function that the Exchange performs in creating the BATS One Feed, and offer a data feed with the same information included in the BATS One Feed to sell and distribute it to its clients with no greater cost than the Exchange.

    18See BATS One Fee Proposals, supra note 6.

    To enable such competition, the Exchange is offering the Digital Media Enterprise license for the BATS One Feed on terms that a subscriber of the underlying feeds could offer a competing product if it so chooses. The BATS One Feed is comprised of data included in EDGX Depth, EDGA Depth, BYX Depth, and BZX Depth.19 Currently, an External Distributor could create a competing product to the BATS One Premium Feed 20 by purchasing each of these depth of book products from the individual BATS Exchanges and then performing its own aggregation and consolidation functions. The combined External Distributor fees for these individual data feeds of the BATS Exchanges is $12,500 per month.21 An External Distributor that seeks to create a competing product to the BATS One Summary Feed could instead subscribe to the following data feeds: EDGX Top, EDGX Last Sale, EDGA Top, EDGA Last Sale, BZX Top, BZX Last Sale, BYX Top, and BYX Last Sale,22 and then perform their own aggregation and consolidation function. The combined External Distributor fees for these individual data feeds of the BATS Exchanges is $5,000 per month.23 The Exchange proposes to charge a Digital Media Enterprise Fee ($15,000 per month for the BATS One Summary Feed and $25,000 per month for the BATS One Premium Feed, plus the $1,000 per month Data Consolidation fee) that exceeds the combined External Distributor fees for each of the individual feeds listed above to ensure that vendors could compete with the Exchange by creating the same product as the BATS One Feed to sell to their clients at no greater cost than the Exchange.

    19See EDGA Rule 13.8, EDGX Rule 13.8, BZX Rule 11.22(a) and (c), and BYX Rule 11.22 (a) and (c) for a description of the depth of book feeds offered by each of the BATS Exchanges.

    20 Like the Exchange, an External Distributor would also be able to create a competing product to the BATS One Summary Feed from the data received via EDGX Depth, EDGA Depth, BYX Depth, and BZX Depth, without having to separately purchase the top and last sale feeds from each of the BATS Exchanges.

    21 The monthly External Distributor fee is $2,500 per month for EDGX Depth, $2,500 per month for EDGA Depth, $2,500 for BYX Depth, and $5,000 for BZX Depth.

    22See supra note 5. See also BATS Rule 11.22(d) and (g).

    23 The monthly External Distributor fee is $1,250 per month for EDGX Top and EDGX Last Sale (as proposed herein), free for EDGA Top and EDGA Last Sale, $1,250 for BYX Top and BYX Last Sale, and $2,500 for BZX Top and BZX Last Sale. See BATS One Fee Proposals, supra note 7.

    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010), upheld the Commission's reliance upon the existence of competitive market mechanisms to set reasonable and equitably allocated fees for proprietary market data.

    In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'

    Id. at 535 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229 at 92 (1975), as reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 323). The court agreed with the Commission's conclusion that “Congress intended that `competitive forces should dictate the services and practices that constitute the U.S. national market system for trading equity securities.' ” 24

    24NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 535.

    As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on Competition, the Exchange believes that there is substantial evidence of competition in the marketplace for data and that the Commission can rely upon such evidence in concluding that the fees established in this filing are the product of competition and therefore satisfy the relevant statutory standards.25 In addition, the existence of alternatives to the BATS One Feed, including real-time consolidated data, free delayed consolidated data, and proprietary last sale data from other sources, as described below, further ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and users can elect such alternatives.

    25 Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) amended paragraph (A) of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3), to make clear that all exchange fees for market data may be filed by exchanges on an immediately effective basis.

    As the NetCoalition decision noted, the Commission is not required to undertake a cost-of-service or ratemaking approach, and the Exchange incorporates by reference into this proposed rule change its affiliate's [sic] analysis of this topic in another rule filing.26

    26See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63291 (Nov. 9, 2010), 75 FR 70311 (November 17, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-97).

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.

    Non-Substantive Change to the Description of the BATS One Enterprise Fee

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to the BATS One Enterprise Fee is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,27 in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,28 in particular, in that it provides for an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among recipients of the data and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or dealers. The proposal to amend the description of the Enterprise fee within the fee schedule is equitable and reasonable because the changes are designed to clarify the fee schedule and avoid potential investor confusion. The proposed changes do not amend the amount or application of the BATS One Enterprise fee. The proposed changes are also non-discriminatory as they would apply to all recipient firms uniformly.

    27 15 U.S.C. 78f.

    28 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

    BATS One Digital Media Enterprise Fee

    The BATS One Feed Digital Media Enterprise fee will enhance competition because it provides investors with an alternative option for receiving market data and competes directly with similar market data products currently offered by the NYSE and Nasdaq.29 The Exchange notes that there is already actual competition for products similar to the BATS One Feed. The NYSE offers BQT which provides BBO and last sale information for the NYSE, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. and NYSE MKT LLC.30 Nasdaq offers Nasdaq Basic, a filed market data product, and through its affiliate, offers NLS Plus which provides a unified view of last sale information similar to the BATS One Feed.31 The existence of these competing data products demonstrates that there is ample, existing competition for products such as the BATS One Feed and the fees associated by such products is constrained by competition.

    29See Nasdaq Basic, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=nasdaqbasic (last visited May 29, 2014) (data feed offering the BBO and Last Sale information for all U.S. exchange-listed securities based on liquidity within the Nasdaq market center, as well as trades reported to the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility (“TRF”));Nasdaq NLS Plus, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=NLSplus (last visited July 8, 2014) (data feed providing last sale data as well as consolidated volume from the following Nasdaq OMX markets for U.S. exchange-listed securities: Nasdaq, FINRA/Nasdaq TRF, Nasdaq OMX BX, and Nasdaq OMX PSX); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73553 (November 6, 2014), 79 FR 67491 (November 13, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-40) (Notice of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No.1, To Establish the NYSE Best Quote & Trades (“BQT”) Data Feed); http://www.nyxdata.com/Data-Products/NYSE-Best-Quote-and-Trades (last visited May 27, 2014) (data feed providing unified view of BBO and last sale information for the NYSE, NYSE Arca, and NYSE MKT).

    30Id.

    31Id.

    In establishing the proposed fees, the Exchange considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that it has considered all relevant factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees among all Users. The existence of alternatives to the BATS One Feed, including the existing underlying feeds, consolidated data, and proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data product if its cost to purchase is not justified by the returns any particular vendor or subscriber would achieve through the purchase.

    Finally, although the BATS Exchanges are the exclusive distributors of the individual data feeds from which certain data elements would be taken to create the BATS One Feed, the Exchange is not the exclusive distributor of the aggregated and consolidated information that would compose the BATS One Feed. The Exchange has taken into consideration its affiliated relationship with EDGX, BYX, and BZX in its design of the BATS One Feed to assure that vendors would be able to offer a similar product on the same terms as the Exchange from a cost perspective. While the BATS Exchanges are the exclusive distributors of the individual data feeds from which certain data elements may be taken to create the BATS One Feed, they are not the exclusive distributors of the aggregated and consolidated information that comprises the BATS One Feed. As discussed in in the BATS One Fee Proposal,32 any entity may separately purchase the individual underlying products, and if they so choose, perform a similar aggregation and consolidation function that the Exchange performs in creating the BATS One Feed, and offer a data feed with the same information included in the BATS One Feed to sell and distribute it to its clients with no greater cost than the Exchange.

    32See BATS One Fee Proposals, supra note 7.

    To enable such competition, the amount of the proposed Digital Media Enterprise license compared to the cost of the individual data feeds from the BATS Exchanges would enable a vendor to receive the underlying data feeds and offer a similar product on a competitive basis and with no greater cost than the Exchange. The amount of the proposed Digital Media Enterprise license, coupled with the Data Consolidation Fee, is not lower than the cost to a vendor of receiving the underlying data feeds to create a competing product. Therefore, the amount of the proposed Digital Media Enterprise license the Exchange would charge clients for the BATS One Feed compared to the cost of the individual data feeds from the BATS Exchanges would enable a vendor to receive the underlying data feeds and offer a similar product on a competitive basis and with no greater cost than the Exchange.

    Non-Substantive Change to the Description of the BATS One Enterprise Fee

    The proposal to amend the description of the Enterprise fee within the fee schedule will not have any impact on completion [sic]. The proposed changes are designed to clarify the fee schedule and avoid potential investor confusion and do not amend the amount or application of the BATS One Enterprise fee.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 33 and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.34 At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

    33 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    34 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-EDGA-2015-14 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2015-14. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2015-14, and should be submitted on or before April 23, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.35

    35 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07521 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74597; File No. SR-NSX-2015-01] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change in Connection With the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of National Stock Exchange Holdings, Inc., the Exchange's Parent Corporation, and the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Exchange March 27, 2015.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act” or “Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on March 19, 2015, National Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NSX®” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change, as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this rule proposal as “non-controversial” pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.4 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing the instant rule amendment to effectuate ministerial, non-substantive amendments to (i) the certificate of incorporation of National Stock Exchange Holdings, Inc. (“NSX Holdings”), a Delaware corporation that owns all of the issued and outstanding shares of NSX; and (ii) the certificate of incorporation of NSX. The text of the proposed change to the NSX Holdings certificate of incorporation is attached as Exhibit 5A and the text of the proposed change to the NSX certificate of incorporation is attached as Exhibit 5B.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and statutory basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange is proposing to make ministerial, non-substantive amendments to the certificates of incorporation of NSX Holdings and of NSX. The Exchange is proposing these amendments in order to satisfy the requirements of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”) and correct technical defects in those documents. The Exchange previously submitted to the Commission (i) a proposed “Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation for National Stock Exchange Holdings, Inc.” (the “Holdings Amended Certificate”); and (ii) a proposed “Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation for National Stock Exchange, Inc.” (the “NSX Amended Certificate”). Both of these documents were submitted to the Commission as part of a rule filing seeking approval of a transaction in which NSX Holdings purchased all of the outstanding shares of NSX from the CBOE Stock Exchange, LLC.5 The Commission granted its approval of the proposed transaction on February 13, 2015 6 and the transaction closed on February 18, 2015.

    5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73944 (December 24, 2014), 80 FR 85 (January 2, 2015) (SR-NSX-2014-017).

    6See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74270 (February 13, 2015), 80 FR 9286 (February 20, 2015) (“Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change in Connection With a Proposed Transaction in Which National Stock Exchange Holdings, Inc. Will Acquire Ownership of the Exchange from the CBOE Stock Exchange, LLC”).

    In connection with filing the Holdings Amended Certificate and the NSX Amended Certificate with the Delaware Secretary of State, the Exchange became aware that the titles of both documents, as filed with and approved by the Commission, were not correct and would not be acceptable for filing. Specifically, the Holdings Amended Certificate was incorrectly titled as the “Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation” because, as described below, a prior amendment to the Holdings certificate of incorporation through a “Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation” (the “Certificate of Amendment”) did not constitute an amendment and restatement of the NSX Holdings certificate of incorporation under the DGCL. Accordingly, as proposed, the Holdings Amended Certificate will be entitled “Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation for National Stock Exchange Holdings, Inc.” The NSX Amended Certificate will be entitled “Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of National Stock Exchange, Inc.” because the Exchange had previously filed with the Delaware Secretary of State an amended and restated certificate of incorporation which would have been deemed a “second” amended and restated certificate of incorporation, although it had not been titled as such. The Exchange also proposes to make conforming amendments to the text of each document.

    NSX Holdings was incorporated in the State of Delaware on August 19, 2014. The original certificate of incorporation for NSX Holdings was amended on October 2, 2014 with the filing of the Certificate of Amendment with the Delaware Secretary of State. The Certificate of Amendment increased the total number of shares of common stock that NSX Holdings was authorized to issue from 10,000 shares to 100,000 shares with a par value of $0.01 but made no other changes to the certificate of incorporation. Prior to the filing of the Holdings Amended Certificate with the Delaware Secretary of State, the Exchange became aware that, under the DGCL, the document should properly be entitled “Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation” because it seeks to: (i) Integrate into a single instrument all of the provisions of NSX Holdings' certificate of incorporation and the Certificate of Amendment; and (ii) further amend NSX Holdings' certificate of incorporation.7 Since NSX Holdings had not previously filed an “Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation” with the Delaware Secretary of State, but had only filed the Certificate of Amendment increasing the authorized shares that NSX Holdings was permitted to issue, the Holdings Amended Certificate in its present form, as filed with and approved by the Commission, would not be accepted for filing. Accordingly, the Exchange seeks approval for NSX Holdings to modify the form of the Holdings Amended Certificate that it proposes to file with the Delaware Secretary of State by changing the title and making certain conforming amendments in the text of the document. The Exchange also proposes to eliminate references in the introductory paragraph of the Holdings Amended Certificate to the October 2, 2014 amendment of the original certificate of incorporation through the Certificate of Amendment, because such references are not necessary for purposes of the DGCL.

    7 Specifically, Section 245(a) of the DGCL provides that “[a] corporation may, whenever desired, integrate into a single instrument all of the provisions of its certificate of incorporation which are then in effect and operative as a result of there having theretofore been filed with the Secretary of State [one] or more certificates or other instruments . . . and it may at the same time also further amend its certificate of incorporation by adopting a restated certificate of incorporation.”

    With respect to the NSX Amended Certificate, the Exchange became aware that entitling it the “Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation” was not correct because a document meeting the definition of a second amended and restated certificate of incorporation had previously been filed with the Delaware Secretary of State, even though it had not been specifically entitled as such.8 On February 18, 2015, the NSX Amended Certificate, in the form approved by the Commission was submitted for filing to the Delaware Secretary of State. The Delaware Secretary of State refused to accept the NSX Amended Certificate unless it was modified to eliminate the reference to it being the “Second” Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation. The title of the document was changed and conforming modifications were made to the text. The NSX Amended Certificate was accepted by and successfully filed with the Delaware Secretary of State.

    8 On December 30, 2011, the Exchange filed an “Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of National Stock Exchange, Inc.” with the Delaware Secretary of State. As stated therein, the original Certificate of Incorporation was filed on December 12, 2005 and was restated on June 29, 2006.

    Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing to amend the NSX Amended Certificate previously filed with, and approved by, the Commission by entitling the NSX Amended Certificate as the “Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of National Stock Exchange, Inc.” and making conforming amendments to the text of the document. In so doing, the Exchange seeks to fully comply with DGCL and with the Exchange Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed changes to the Holdings Amended Certificate and the NSX Amended Certificate are ministerial and do not affect the substance of either document.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its rule proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, in particular, because the proposed change will align the charter documents of NSX Holdings and of the Exchange with the specific requirements of the DGCL. The Exchange's proposal to make non-substantive changes to the Holdings Amended Certificate and the NSX Amended Certificate furthers the purposes of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act to, among other things, prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed changes are ministerial, do not affect the substance of either document and are necessary to assure that charter documents of NSX Holdings and of the Exchange meet the Delaware statutory requirements.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate for the furtherance of the Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issue in the U.S. securities markets or have any impact on competition in those markets because it is intended to correct technical defects in the form of the certificates of incorporation of NSX Holdings and of the Exchange.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited or received comments on the proposed rule change from market participants or others.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:

    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;

    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and

    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 9 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 10 thereunder.

    9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-NSX-2015-01 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2015-01. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2015-01 and should be submitted on or before April 23, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.11

    11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07518 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 500-1] Order of Suspension of Trading; Earth Dragon Resources, Inc. March 31, 2015.

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Earth Dragon Resources, Inc. (“Earth Dragon”) because it has not filed a periodic report since it filed its Form 10-Q for the period ending August 31, 2011, filed on October 3, 2012. Earth Dragon's common stock (ticker “EARH”) is quoted on OTC Link (previously “Pink Sheets”) operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc.

    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of Earth Dragon.

    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of Earth Dragon is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on March 31, 2015 through 11:59 p.m. EDT on April 14, 2015.

    By the Commission.

    Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07674 Filed 3-31-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74601; File No. SR-EDGX-2015-14]) Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees for the BATS One Market Data Product March 27, 2015.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on March 17, 2015, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the market data section of its fee schedule to: (i) Establish a Digital Media Enterprise Fee for the BATS One Feed; and (ii) make a non-substantive change to the description of the BATS One Feed Enterprise fee.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to amend the market data section of its fee schedule to: (i) Establish a Digital Media Enterprise Fee for the BATS One Feed; and (ii) make a non-substantive change to the description of the BATS One Feed Enterprise fee.

    The Commission recently approved a proposed rule change by the Exchange to establish a new market data product called the BATS One Feed 5 as well as published proposed rule changes to establish related fees.6 The BATS One Feed is a data feed that disseminates, on a real-time basis, the aggregate best bid and offer (“BBO”) of all displayed orders for securities traded on EDGX and its affiliated exchanges 7 and for which the BATS Exchanges report quotes under the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) Plan or the Nasdaq/UTP Plan.8 The BATS One Feed also contains the individual last sale information for the BATS Exchanges (collectively with the aggregate BBO, the “BATS One Summary Feed”). In addition, the BATS One Feed contains optional functionality which enables recipients to receive aggregated two-sided quotations from the BATS Exchanges for up to five (5) price levels (“BATS One Premium Feed”).

    5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73918 (December 23, 2014), 79 FR 78920 (December 31, 2014) (File Nos. SR-EDGX-2014-25; SR-EDGA-2014-25; SR-BATS-2014-055; SR-BYX-2014-030) (Notice of Amendments No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, to Establish a New Market Data Product called the BATS One Feed) (“BATS One Approval Order”).

    6See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74282 (February 17, 2015), 80 FR 9487 (February 23, 2015) (SR-EDGX-2015-09); 74283 (February 18, 2015), 80 FR 9809 (February 24, 2015) (SR-EDGA-2015-09); 74284 (February 18, 2015), 80 FR 9792 (February 24, 2015) (SR-BYX-2015-09); and 74285 (February 18, 2015), 80 FR 9828 (February 24, 2015) (SR-BATS-2015-11) (“BATS One Fee Proposals”).

    7 EDGX's affiliated exchanges are BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”), BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (“BYX”), and EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”, together with EDGX, BZX, and BYX, the “BATS Exchanges”). On January 31, 2014, Direct Edge Holdings LLC (“DE Holdings”), the former parent company of the Exchange and EDGA, completed its business combination with BATS Global Markets, Inc., the parent company of BZX and BYX. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71449 (January 30, 2014), 79 FR 6961 (February 5, 2014) (SR-EDGX-2013-43, SR-EDGA-2014-34). Upon completion of the business combination, DE Holdings and BATS Global Markets, Inc. each became intermediate holding companies, held under a single new holding company. The new holding company, formerly named “BATS Global Markets Holdings, Inc.,” changed its name to “BATS Global Markets, Inc.”

    8 The Exchange understands that each of the BATS Exchanges will separately file substantially similar proposed rule changes with the Commission to implement fees for the BATS One Feed.

    BATS One Digital Media Enterprise Fee

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to establish a Digital Media Enterprise Fee of $15,000 per month for the BATS One Summary Feed and $25,000 per month for the BATS One Premium Feed. As an alternative to User fees,9 a recipient firm may purchase a monthly Digital Media Enterprise license to receive the BATS One Feed from an External Distributor 10 to distribute to an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users 11 for viewing via television, Web sites, and mobile devices for informational and non-trading purposes only without having to account for the extent of access to the data or the report the number of Users to the Exchange. The Digital Media Enterprise Fee would be in addition to the Data Consolidation Fee.12

    9 The Exchange assesses a monthly fee for Professional Users of $10.00 per User for receipt of the BATS One Summary Feed or $15.00 per User who elects to also receive the BATS One Premium Feed. Non-Professional Users are assessed a monthly fee of $0.25 per user for the BATS One Summary Feed or $0.50 per user for the BATS One Premium Feed. External Distributors must count every Professional User and Non-Professional User to which they provide BATS One Feed data. See BATS One Fee Proposals, supra note 6.

    10 As defined in the Exchange's fee schedule, an External Distributor of an Exchange Market Data product is a Distributor that receives the Exchange Market Data product and then distributes that data to a third party or one or more Users outside the Distributor's own entity.

    11 As defined in the Exchange's fee schedule, a User of an Exchange Market Data product is a natural person, a proprietorship, corporation, partnership, or entity, or device (computer or other automated service), that is entitled to receive Exchange data. A Non-Professional User of an Exchange Market Data product is a natural person who is not: (i) Registered or qualified in any capacity with the Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, any state securities agency, any securities exchange or association, or any commodities or futures contract market or association; (ii) engaged as an “investment adviser” as that term is defined in Section 201(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (whether or not registered or qualified under that Act); or (iii) employed by a bank or other organization exempt from registration under federal or state securities laws to perform functions that would require registration or qualification if such functions were performed for an organization not so exempt. A Professional User of an Exchange Market Data product is any User other than a Non-Professional User.

    12 The Data Consolidation Fee is $1,000 per month and is designed to reflect the value of the aggregation and consolidation function the Exchange performs in creating the BATS One Feed. See BATS One Fee Proposals, supra note 6.

    Non-Substantive Change to the Description of the BATS One Enterprise Fee

    The Exchange proposes a non-substantive change to the description of the BATS One Enterprise fee. The fee schedule currently states that, “[a]s an alternative to User fees, a recipient firm may purchase a monthly Enterprise Fee to receive the BATS One Feed from an External Distributor for an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users.” The Exchange proposes to amend this sentence in two ways. The first amendment is to state that a recipient firm may purchase a monthly Enterprise license, rather than Enterprise fee, as the term “license” is a more accurate description. The second is to specify that the recipient firm purchasing a monthly enterprise license does so to distribute the BATS One Feed to an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users.

    2. Statutory Basis BATS One Digital Media Enterprise Fee

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Digital Media Enterprise Fee for the BATS One Feed is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,13 in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,14 in particular, in that it provides for an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among recipients of the data and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act 15 in that it supports (i) fair competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange markets, and between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets and (ii) the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities. Furthermore, the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 603 of Regulation NMS,16 which provides that any national securities exchange that distributes information with respect to quotations for or transactions in an NMS stock do so on terms that are not unreasonably discriminatory. In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data products to the public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data.

    13 15 U.S.C. 78f.

    14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    15 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.

    16See 17 CFR 242.603.

    In addition, the proposed fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply uniformly to market data vendors, television broadcasters, Web site and mobile service providers. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to establish a lower cost fee structure that is designed to facilitate broader media distribution of the BATS One Data Feed for informational purposes because it will benefit investors generally.

    In establishing the Digital Media Enterprise Fee, the Exchange recognizes that there is demand for a more seamless and easier-to-administer data distribution mode that takes into account the expanded variety of media and communication devices that investors utilize today. The Exchange believes the Digital Media Enterprise Fee will be easy to administer because data recipients that purchase it would not be required to differentiate between Professional and Non-Professional Users, account for the extent of access to the data, or report the number of Users. This is a significant reduction on a recipient firm's administrative burdens and is a significant value to investors. For example, a television broadcaster could display the BATS One Feed data during market-related programming and on its Web site or allow viewers to view the data via their mobile devices, creating a more seamless distribution model that will allow investors more choice in how they receive and view market data, all without having to account for and/or measure who accesses the data and how often they do so.

    The proposed Digital Media Enterprise Fee is equitable and reasonable because it will also enable recipient firms to more widely distribute data from the BATS One Feed to investors for informational purposes at a lower cost than is available today. For example, a recipient firm may purchase an Enterprise license in the amount of $50,000 per month for the BATS One Summary Feed and $100,000 per month for the BATS One Premium Feed to receive the BATS One Feed from an External Distributor for an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users, which is greater than the Digital Media Enterprise fee proposed herein. The Exchange also believes the amount of the Digital Enterprise [sic] is reasonable as compared to the existing Enterprise fees discussed above because the distribution of BATS One Feed data is limited to television, Web sites, and mobile devices for informational purposes only, while distribution of the BATS One Feed data pursuant to an Enterprise license contains no such limitation. The Exchange also believes that the proposed Digital Media Enterprise fee is equitable and reasonable because it is less than similar fees charged by other exchanges.17

    17 The Nasdaq Stock Market offers proprietary data products for distribution over the internet and television under alternative fee schedules that are subject to maximum fee of $50,000 per month. See Nasdaq Rule 7039(b). The NYSE charges a Digit Media Enterprise fee of $40,000 per month for the NYSE Trade Digital Media product. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69272 (April 2, 2013), 78 FR 20983 (April 8, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-23).

    The Exchange has taken into consideration its affiliated relationship with EDGA, BYX, and BZX in proposing the Digital Media Enterprise fee to assure that vendors would be able to offer a similar product on the same terms as the Exchange from a cost perspective. While the BATS Exchanges are the exclusive distributors of the individual data feeds from which certain data elements may be taken to create the BATS One Feed, they are not the exclusive distributors of the aggregated and consolidated information that comprises the BATS One Feed. As discussed in in [sic] the BATS One Fee Proposal,18 any entity may separately purchase the individual underlying products, and if they so choose, perform a similar aggregation and consolidation function that the Exchange performs in creating the BATS One Feed, and offer a data feed with the same information included in the BATS One Feed to sell and distribute it to its clients with no greater cost than the Exchange.

    18See BATS One Fee Proposals, supra note 6.

    To enable such competition, the Exchange is offering the Digital Media Enterprise license for the BATS One Feed on terms that a subscriber of the underlying feeds could offer a competing product if it so chooses. The BATS One Feed is comprised of data included in EDGX Depth, EDGA Depth, BYX Depth, and BZX Depth.19 Currently, an External Distributor could create a competing product to the BATS One Premium Feed 20 by purchasing each of these depth of book products from the individual BATS Exchanges and then performing its own aggregation and consolidation functions. The combined External Distributor fees for these individual data feeds of the BATS Exchanges is $12,500 per month.21 An External Distributor that seeks to create a competing product to the BATS One Summary Feed could instead subscribe to the following data feeds: EDGX Top, EDGX Last Sale, EDGA Top, EDGA Last Sale, BZX Top, BZX Last Sale, BYX Top, and BYX Last Sale,22 and then perform their own aggregation and consolidation function. The combined External Distributor fees for these individual data feeds of the BATS Exchanges is $5,000 per month.23 The Exchange proposes to charge a Digital Media Enterprise Fee ($15,000 per month for the BATS One Summary Feed and $25,000 per month for the BATS One Premium Feed, plus the $1,000 per month Data Consolidation fee) that exceeds the combined External Distributor fees for each of the individual feeds listed above to ensure that vendors could compete with the Exchange by creating the same product as the BATS One Feed to sell to their clients at no greater cost than the Exchange.

    19See EDGA Rule 13.8, EDGX Rule 13.8, BZX Rule 11.22(a) and (c), and BYX Rule 11.22 (a) and (c) for a description of the depth of book feeds offered by each of the BATS Exchanges.

    20 Like the Exchange, an External Distributor would also be able to create a competing product to the BATS One Summary Feed from the data received via EDGX Depth, EDGA Depth, BYX Depth, and BZX Depth, without having to separately purchase the top and last sale feeds from each of the BATS Exchanges.

    21 The monthly External Distributor fee is $2,500 per month for EDGX Depth, $2,500 per month for EDGA Depth, $2,500 for BYX Depth, and $5,000 for BZX Depth.

    22See supra note 5. See also BATS Rule 11.22(d) and (g).

    23 The monthly External Distributor fee is $1,250 per month for EDGX Top and EDGX Last Sale (as proposed herein), free for EDGA Top and EDGA Last Sale, $1,250 for BYX Top and BYX Last Sale, and $2,500 for BZX Top and BZX Last Sale. See BATS One Fee Proposals, supra note 6.

    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010), upheld the Commission's reliance upon the existence of competitive market mechanisms to set reasonable and equitably allocated fees for proprietary market data.

    In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'

    Id. at 535 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229 at 92 (1975), as reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 323). The court agreed with the Commission's conclusion that “Congress intended that `competitive forces should dictate the services and practices that constitute the U.S. national market system for trading equity securities.' ” 24

    24NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 535.

    As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on Competition, the Exchange believes that there is substantial evidence of competition in the marketplace for data and that the Commission can rely upon such evidence in concluding that the fees established in this filing are the product of competition and therefore satisfy the relevant statutory standards.25 In addition, the existence of alternatives to the BATS One Feed, including real-time consolidated data, free delayed consolidated data, and proprietary last sale data from other sources, as described below, further ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and users can elect such alternatives.

    25 Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) amended paragraph (A) of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3), to make clear that all exchange fees for market data may be filed by exchanges on an immediately effective basis.

    As the NetCoalition decision noted, the Commission is not required to undertake a cost-of-service or ratemaking approach, and the Exchange incorporates by reference into this proposed rule change its affiliate's analysis of this topic in another rule filing.26

    26See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63291 (Nov. 9, 2010), 75 FR 70311 (November 17, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-97).

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.

    Non-Substantive Change to the Description of the BATS One Enterprise Fee

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to the BATS One Enterprise Fee is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,27 in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,28 in particular, in that it provides for an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among recipients of the data and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or dealers. The proposal to amend the description of the Enterprise fee within the fee schedule is equitable and reasonable because the changes are designed to clarify the fee schedule and avoid potential investor confusion. The proposed changes do not amend the amount or application of the BATS One Enterprise fee. The proposed changes are also non-discriminatory as they would apply to all recipient firms uniformly.

    27 15 U.S.C. 78f.

    28 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

    BATS One Digital Media Enterprise Fee

    The BATS One Feed Digital Media Enterprise fee will enhance competition because it provides investors with an alternative option for receiving market data and competes directly with similar market data products currently offered by the NYSE and Nasdaq.29 The Exchange notes that there is already actual competition for products similar to the BATS One Feed. The NYSE offers BQT which provides BBO and last sale information for the NYSE, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. and NYSE MKT LLC.30 Nasdaq offers Nasdaq Basic, a filed market data product, and through its affiliate, offers NLS Plus which provides a unified view of last sale information similar to the BATS One Feed.31 The existence of these competing data products demonstrates that there is ample, existing competition for products such as the BATS One Feed and the fees associated by such products is constrained by competition.

    29See Nasdaq Basic, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=nasdaqbasic (last visited May 29, 2014) (data feed offering the BBO and Last Sale information for all U.S. exchange-listed securities based on liquidity within the Nasdaq market center, as well as trades reported to the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility (“TRF”)); Nasdaq NLS Plus, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=NLSplus (last visited July 8, 2014) (data feed providing last sale data as well as consolidated volume from the following Nasdaq OMX markets for U.S. exchange-listed securities: Nasdaq, FINRA/Nasdaq TRF, Nasdaq OMX BX, and Nasdaq OMX PSX); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73553 (November 6, 2014), 79 FR 67491 (November 13, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-40) (Notice of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No.1, To Establish the NYSE Best Quote & Trades (“BQT”) Data Feed); http://www.nyxdata.com/Data-Products/NYSE-Best-Quote-and-Trades (last visited May 27, 2014) (data feed providing unified view of BBO and last sale information for the NYSE, NYSE Arca, and NYSE MKT).

    30Id.

    31Id.

    In establishing the proposed fees, the Exchange considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that it has considered all relevant factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees among all Users. The existence of alternatives to the BATS One Feed, including the existing underlying feeds, consolidated data, and proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data product if its cost to purchase is not justified by the returns any particular vendor or subscriber would achieve through the purchase.

    Finally, although the BATS Exchanges are the exclusive distributors of the individual data feeds from which certain data elements would be taken to create the BATS One Feed, the Exchange is not the exclusive distributor of the aggregated and consolidated information that would compose the BATS One Feed. The Exchange has taken into consideration its affiliated relationship with EDGA, BYX, and BZX in its design of the BATS One Feed to assure that vendors would be able to offer a similar product on the same terms as the Exchange from a cost perspective. While the BATS Exchanges are the exclusive distributors of the individual data feeds from which certain data elements may be taken to create the BATS One Feed, they are not the exclusive distributors of the aggregated and consolidated information that comprises the BATS One Feed. As discussed in in the BATS One Fee Proposal,32 any entity may separately purchase the individual underlying products, and if they so choose, perform a similar aggregation and consolidation function that the Exchange performs in creating the BATS One Feed, and offer a data feed with the same information included in the BATS One Feed to sell and distribute it to its clients with no greater cost than the Exchange.

    32See BATS One Fee Proposals, supra note 6.

    To enable such competition, the amount of the proposed Digital Media Enterprise license compared to the cost of the individual data feeds from the BATS Exchanges would enable a vendor to receive the underlying data feeds and offer a similar product on a competitive basis and with no greater cost than the Exchange. The amount of the proposed Digital Media Enterprise license, coupled with the Data Consolidation Fee, is not lower than the cost to a vendor of receiving the underlying data feeds to create a competing product. Therefore, the amount of the proposed Digital Media Enterprise license the Exchange would charge clients for the BATS One Feed compared to the cost of the individual data feeds from the BATS Exchanges would enable a vendor to receive the underlying data feeds and offer a similar product on a competitive basis and with no greater cost than the Exchange.

    Non-Substantive Change to the Description of the BATS One Enterprise Fee

    The proposal to amend the description of the Enterprise fee within the fee schedule will not have any impact on completion [sic]. The proposed changes are designed to clarify the fee schedule and avoid potential investor confusion and do not amend the amount or application of the BATS One Enterprise fee.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 33 and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.34 At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

    33 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    34 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-EDGX-2015-14 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2015-14. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2015-14, and should be submitted on or before April 23, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.35

    35 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07522 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 500-1] In the Matter of Urban AG Corp.; Order of Suspension of Trading March 31, 2015.

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Urban AG Corporation (“Urban AG”) because it has not filed a periodic report since it filed its Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2013, filed on November 19, 2013. Urban AG's common stock (ticker “AQUM”) is quoted on OTC Link (previously “Pink Sheets”) operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc.

    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of Urban AG.

    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of Urban AG is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on March 31, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on April 14, 2015.

    By the Commission.

    Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07672 Filed 3-31-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74603; File No. SR-OCC-2015-009] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Establish Procedures Regarding the Monthly Resizing of its Clearing Fund and the Addition of Financial Resources March 27, 2015.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on March 13, 2015, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by OCC.3 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 On March 13, 2015, OCC formally withdrew the proposed rule change filed as SR-OCC-2014-22, as modified by Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2 thereto, the substance of which OCC has refiled as SR-OCC-2015-009.

    I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    OCC proposes to establish procedures regarding the monthly resizing of its Clearing Fund and the addition of financial resources through intra-day margin calls and/or an intra-month increase of the Clearing Fund to ensure that it maintains adequate financial resources in the event of a default of a Clearing Member or group of affiliated Clearing Members presenting the largest exposure to OCC.

    II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.

    (A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The proposed rule change is intended to describe the situations in which OCC would exercise authority under its Rules to ensure that it maintains adequate Financial Resources 4 in the event that stress tests reveal a default of the Clearing Member or Clearing Member Group 5 presenting the largest exposure would threaten the then-current Financial Resources. This proposed rule change would establish procedures governing: (i) OCC's resizing of the Clearing Fund on a monthly basis pursuant to Rule 1001(a) (the “Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure”); and (ii) the addition of Financial Resources through an intra-day margin call on one or more Clearing Members under Rule 609 and, if necessary, an intra-month increase of the Clearing Fund pursuant to Rule 1001(a) (the “Financial Resource Monitoring and Call Procedure”).6 The Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure would permit OCC to determine the size of the Clearing Fund by relying on a broader range of sound risk management practices than those historically used under Rule 1001(a).7 The Financial Resource Monitoring and Call Procedure would require OCC to collect additional Financial Resources in certain circumstances, establish how OCC calculates and collects such resources and provide the timing by which such resources would be required to be deposited by Clearing Members.

    4 “Financial Resources” means, with respect to a projected loss attributable to a particular Clearing Member or Clearing Member Group, as defined below, the sum of the margin deposits (less any excess margin a Clearing Member or Clearing Member Group may have on deposit at OCC) and deposits in lieu of margin in respect of such Clearing Members' or Clearing Member Groups' accounts, and the value of OCC's Clearing Fund, including both the Base Amount, as defined below, and the prudential margin of safety, as discussed below.

    5 “Clearing Member Group” means a Clearing Member and any affiliated entities that control, are controlled by or are under common control with such Clearing Member. See OCC By-Laws, Article I, Sections 1.C.(15) and 1.M(11).

    6 This proposed rule filing has also been filed as an advance notice filing (SR-OCC-2014-811).

    7 The procedures described herein would be in effect until the development of a new standard Clearing Fund sizing methodology. Following such development, which will include a quantitative approach to calculating the “prudential margin of safety,” as discussed below, OCC will file a separate rule change and advance notice with the Commission that will include a description of the new methodology as well as a revised Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure.

    Background

    OCC monitors the sufficiency of the Clearing Fund on a daily basis but, prior to emergency action taken on October 16, 2014,8 OCC had no express authority to increase the size of the Clearing Fund on an intra-month basis.9 During ordinary course daily monitoring on October 15, 2014, and as a result of increased volatility in the financial markets in October 2014, OCC determined that the Financial Resources needed to cover the potential loss associated with a default of the Clearing Member or Clearing Member Group presenting the largest exposure could have exceeded the Financial Resources then available to apply to such a default.

    8 On October 16, 2014, OCC filed an emergency notice with the Commission to suspend the effectiveness of the second sentence of Rule 1001(a). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73579 (November 12, 2014), 79 FR 68747 (November 18, 2014) (SR-OCC-2014-807). On November 13, 2014, OCC filed SR-OCC-2014-21 with the Commission to delete the second sentence of Rule 1001(a), preserving the suspended effectiveness of that sentence until such time as the Commission approves or disapproves SR-OCC-2014-21. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73685 (November 25, 2014) 79 FR 71479 (December 2, 2014) (SR-OCC-2014-21).

    9See Rule 1001(a).

    To permit OCC to increase the size of its Clearing Fund prior to the next monthly resizing that was scheduled to take place on the first business day of November 2014, OCC's Executive Chairman, on October 16, 2014, exercised certain emergency powers as set forth in Article IX, Section 14 of OCC's By-Laws 10 to waive the effectiveness of the second sentence of Rule 1001(a), which states that OCC will adjust the size of the Clearing Fund monthly and that any resizing will be based on data from the preceding month. OCC then filed an emergency notice with the Commission pursuant to Section 806(e)(2) of the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 11 and increased the Clearing Fund size for the remainder of October 2014 as otherwise provided for in the first sentence of Rule 1001(a).12

    10 OCC also has submitted an advance notice that would provide greater detail concerning conditions under which OCC would increase the size of the Clearing Fund intra-month. The change would permit an intra-month increase in the event that the five-day rolling average of projected draws are 150% or more of the Clearing Fund's then current size. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72804 (August 11, 2014), 79 FR 48276 (August 15, 2014) (SR-OCC-2014-804).

    11 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(2).

    12See supra, note 8.

    Clearing Members were informed of the action taken by the Executive Chairman 13 and the amount of their additional Clearing Fund requirements, which were met without incident. As a result of these actions, OCC's Clearing Fund for October 2014 was increased by $1.8 billion. In continued reliance on the emergency rule waiver and in accordance with the first sentence of Rule 1001(a), OCC set the November 2014 Clearing Fund size at $7.8 billion, which included an amount determined by OCC to be sufficient to protect OCC against loss under simulated default scenarios (i.e., $6 billion), plus a prudential margin of safety (the additional $1.8 billion collected in October).14 All required contributions to the November 2014 Clearing Fund were met by affected Clearing Members.

    13See Information Memorandum #35397, dated October 16, 2014, available on OCC's Web site, http://www.theocc.com/clearing/clearing-infomemos/infomemos1.jsp. Clearing members also were informed that a prudential margin of safety of $1.8 billion would be retained until a new Clearing Fund sizing formula has been approved and implemented.

    14See Information Memorandum # 35507, dated October 31, 2014, available on OCC's Web site, http://www.theocc.com/clearing/clearing-infomemos/infomemos1.jsp.

    Under Article IX, Section 14(c), absent the submission of a proposed rule change to the Commission seeking approval of OCC's waiver of the provisions of the second sentence of Rule 1001(a), such waiver would not be permitted to continue for more than thirty calendar days from the date thereof.15 Accordingly, on November 13, 2014, OCC submitted SR-OCC-2014-21 to delete the second sentence of Rule 1001(a) and, by the terms of Article IX, Section 14(c), preserve the suspended effectiveness of the second sentence of Rule 1001(a) beyond thirty calendar days.16

    15See OCC By-Laws, Article IX, Section 14(c).

    16See supra, note 8. OCC also submitted this proposed rule change to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    SR-OCC-2014-21 was submitted in part to permit OCC to determine the size of its Clearing Fund by relying on a broader range of sound risk management practices than considered in basing such size on the average daily calculations under Rule 1001(a) that are performed during the preceding calendar month. The Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure, as described below, is based on such broader risk management practices and establishes the procedures OCC would use to determine the size of the Clearing Fund on a monthly basis. Similarly, SR-OCC-2014-21 was submitted in part to permit OCC to resize the Clearing Fund more frequently than monthly when the circumstances warrant an increase of the Clearing Fund. The Financial Resource Monitoring and Call Procedure, as described below, establishes the procedures that OCC would use to add Financial Resources through an intra-day margin call on one or more Clearing Members under Rule 609 and, if necessary, an intra-month increase of the Clearing Fund pursuant to Rule 1001(a).17

    17 As noted in SR-OCC-2014-21, OCC would use its intra-month resizing authority only to increase the size of the Clearing Fund where appropriate, not to decrease the size of the Clearing Fund.

    Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure

    Under the Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure, OCC would continue to calculate the size of the Clearing Fund based on its daily stress test exposures under simulated default scenarios as described in the first sentence of Rule 1001(a) and resize the Clearing Fund on the first business day of each month. However, instead of resizing the Clearing Fund based on the average of the daily calculations during the preceding calendar month, as stated in the suspended second sentence of Rule 1001, OCC would resize the Clearing Fund so that it is the sum of: (i) An amount equal to the peak five-day rolling average of Clearing Fund draws observed over the preceding three calendar months of daily idiosyncratic default and minor systemic default scenario calculations based on OCC's daily Monte Carlo simulations (“Base Amount”) and (ii) a prudential margin of safety determined by OCC and currently set at $1.8 billion.18

    18 On a daily basis, OCC computes its exposure under the idiosyncratic and minor systemic events. The greater of these two exposures is that day's “peak exposure.” To calculate the “rolling five day average” OCC computes the average of the peak exposure for each consecutive five-day period observed over the prior three-month period. To determine the Base Amount, OCC would use the largest five-day rolling average observed over the past three-months. This methodology was used to determine the Base Amount of the Clearing Fund for November 2014 and December 2014.

    OCC believes that the proposed Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure provides a sound and prudent approach to ensure that the Financial Resources are adequate to protect against the largest risk of loss presented by the default of a Clearing Member or Clearing Member Group. By virtue of using only the peak five-day rolling average and by extending the look-back period, the proposed Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure is both more responsive to sudden increases in exposure and less susceptible to recently observed decreases in exposure that would reduce the overall sizing of the Clearing Fund, thus mitigating procyclicality.19 Furthermore, the prudential margin of safety provides an additional buffer to absorb potential future exposures not previously observed during the look-back period. The proposed Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure would be supplemented by the Financial Resource Monitoring and Call Procedure, described below, to provide further assurance that the Financial Resources are adequate to protect against such risk of loss.

    19 Considering only the peak exposures is a more conservative methodology that gives greater weighting to sudden increases in exposure experienced by Clearing Members, thus enhancing the responsiveness of the procedure to such sudden increases. By using a longer look-back period, the methodology would respond more slowly to recently observed decreases in peak exposures.

    Financial Resource Monitoring and Call Procedure

    Under the Financial Resource Monitoring and Call Procedure, OCC would use the same daily idiosyncratic default calculation as under the Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure to monitor daily the adequacy of the Financial Resources to withstand a default by the Clearing Member or Clearing Member Group presenting the largest exposure under extreme but plausible market conditions.20 If such a daily idiosyncratic default calculation projected a draw on the Clearing Fund (a “Projected Draw”) that is at least 75% of the Clearing Fund maintained by OCC, OCC would be required to issue an intra-day margin call pursuant to Rule 609 against the Clearing Member or Clearing Member Group that caused such a draw (“Margin Call Event”). 21 Subject to a limitation described below, the amount of the margin call would be the difference between the Projected Draw and the Base Clearing Fund (“Exceedance Above Base Amount”). In the case of a Clearing Member Group that causes the Exceedance Above Base Amount, the Exceedance Above Base Amount would be pro-rated among the individual Clearing Members that compose the Clearing Member Group based on each individual Clearing Member's proportionate share of the “total risk” for such Clearing Member Group as defined in Rule 1001(b), i.e., the margin requirement with respect to all accounts of the Clearing Member Group exclusive of the net asset value of the positions in such accounts aggregated across all such accounts. However, in the case of an individual Clearing Member or a Clearing Member Group, the margin call would be subject to a limitation under which it could not exceed the lower 22 of: (a) $500 million, or (b) 100% of a Clearing Member's net capital. Such limitation would be measured in aggregate with any funds remaining on deposit with OCC deposited by the same Clearing Member pursuant to a Margin Call Event within the same monthly period, as applicable until collection of all funds to satisfy the next regular monthly Clearing Fund resizing (the “500/100 Limitation”).23

    20 Since the minor systemic default scenario contemplates two Clearing Members' simultaneously defaulting and OCC maintains Financial Resources sufficient to cover a default by a Clearing Member or Clearing Member Group representing the greatest exposure to OCC, OCC does not use the minor systemic default scenario to determine the adequacy of the Financial Resources under the Financial Resource Monitoring and Call Procedure.

    21 Rule 609 authorizes OCC to require the deposit of additional margin in any account at any time during any business day by any Clearing Member for, inter alia, the protection of OCC, other Clearing Members or the general public. Clearing Members must meet a required deposit of intra-day margin in immediately available funds at a time prescribed by OCC or within one hour of OCC's issuance of debit settlement instructions against the bank account(s) of the applicable Clearing Member(s), thereby ensuring the prompt deposit of additional Financial Resources.

    22 “Capping” the intra-day margin call avoids placing a “liquidity squeeze” on the subject Clearing Member(s) based on exposures presented by a hypothetical stress test, which would have the potential for causing a default on the intra-day margin call. Back testing results determined that such calls would have been made against Clearing Members that are large, well-capitalized firms, with more than sufficient resources to satisfy the call for additional margin with the proposed limitations.

    23 The Risk Committee would be notified, and could take action to address potential Financial Resource deficiencies, in the event that a Projected Draw resulted in a Margin Call Event and as a result of the 500/100 Limitation the margin call was less than the Exceedance Above Base Amount, but the Projected Draw was not so large as to result in an increase in the Clearing Fund as discussed below.

    Upon satisfaction of the margin call, OCC would use its authority under Rule 608 to preclude the withdrawal of such additional margin amount until it collects all of the funds determined by the next Monthly Clearing Fund Sizing Procedure. Based on three years of back testing data, OCC determined that it would have had Margin Call Events in 10 of the months during this time period. For each of these months, the maximum call amount would have been equal to $500 million, with one exception in which the maximum call amount for the month was $7.7 million.24 After giving effect to the intra-day margin calls, i.e., by increasing the Financial Resources by $500 million, there was only one Margin Call Event where there was an observed stress test exceedance of the Financial Resources.

    24 The back testing analysis performed assumed a single Clearing Member caused the exceedance.

    To address this one observed instance, the Financial Resource Monitoring and Call Procedure also would require OCC to increase the size of the Clearing Fund (“Clearing Fund Intra-month Increase Event”) if a Projected Draw exceeds 90% of the Clearing Fund, after applying any funds then on deposit with OCC from the applicable Clearing Member or Clearing Member Group pursuant to a Margin Call Event. The amount of such increase (“Clearing Fund Increase”) would be the greater of: (a) $1 billion; or (b) 125% of the difference between (i) the Projected Draw, as reduced by the deposits resulting from the Margin Call Event and (ii) the Clearing Fund. Each Clearing Member's proportionate share of the Clearing Fund Increase would equal its proportionate share of the variable portion of the Clearing Fund for the month in question as calculated pursuant to Rule 1001(b).

    OCC would notify the Risk Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Risk Committee”), Clearing Members and appropriate regulatory authorities of the Clearing Fund Increase on the business day on which the Clearing Fund Intra-month Increase Event occurred. This ensures that OCC management maintains authority to address any potential Financial Resource deficiencies when compared to its Projected Draw estimates. The Risk Committee would then determine whether the Clearing Fund Increase was sufficient, and would retain authority to increase the Clearing Fund Increase or the margin call made pursuant to a Margin Call Event in its discretion. Clearing Members would be required to meet the call for additional Clearing Fund assets by 9:00 a.m. CT on the second business day following the Clearing Fund Intra-Month Increase Event. OCC believes that this collection process ensures additional Clearing Fund assets are promptly deposited by Clearing Members following notice of a Clearing Fund Increase, while also providing Clearing Members with a reasonable period of time to source such assets. Based on OCC's back testing results, after giving effect to the intra-day margin call in response to a Margin Call Event plus the prudential margin of safety, the Financial Resources would have been sufficient upon implementing the one instance of a Clearing Fund Intra-month Increase Event.

    OCC believes the Financial Resource Monitoring and Call Procedure strikes a prudent balance between mutualizing the burden of requiring additional Financial Resources and requiring the Clearing Member or Clearing Member Group causing the increased exposure to bear such burden. As noted above, in the event of a Margin Call Event, OCC limits the margin call until collection of all funds to satisfy the next regular monthly resizing to an aggregate of $500 million, or 100% of a Clearing Member's net capital in order to avoid putting an undue liquidity strain on any one Clearing Member. However, where a Projected Draw exceeds 90% of OCC's Clearing Fund, OCC must act to ensure that it has sufficient Financial Resources, and determined that it should mutualize the burden of the additional Financial Resources at this threshold through a Clearing Fund Increase. OCC believes that this balance would provide OCC with sufficient Financial Resources without increasing the likelihood that its procedures would, based solely on stress testing results, cause a liquidity strain on any on Clearing Member that could result in such member's default.

    The following examples illustrate the manner in which the Financial Resource Monitoring and Call Procedure would be applied. All assume that the Clearing Fund size is $7.8 billion, $6 billion of which is the Base Amount and $1.8 billion of which is the prudential margin of safety. The 75% threshold in these examples is $5.85 billion.

    Example 1: Single CM

    Under OCC's stress testing the Projected Draw attributable to Clearing Member ABC, a Clearing Member with no affiliated Clearing Members and net capital of $500 million, is $6.4 billion, or 82% of the Clearing Fund. OCC would make a margin call for $400 million, which represents the Exceedance Above Base Amount. In this case the 500/100 Limitation would not be applicable because the Exceedance Above Base Amount is less than $500 million and 100% of the Clearing Member's net capital. The Clearing Member would be required to meet the $400 million call within one hour unless OCC prescribed a different time, and OCC would retain the $400 million until collection of all the funds to satisfy the next monthly Clearing Fund sizing calculation.

    If, on a different day within the same month, CM ABC's Projected Draw minus the $400 million already deposited with OCC results in an Exceedance above Base Amount, another Margin Call Event would be triggered, with the amount currently deposited with OCC applying toward the 500/100 Limitation.

    Example 2: Clearing Member Group

    Under OCC's stress testing the Projected Draw attributable to Clearing Member Group DEF, comprised of two Clearing Members each with net capital of $800 million, is $6.2 billion, or 79% of OCC's Clearing Fund. OCC would initiate a margin call on Clearing Member Group DEF for $200 million. The call would be allocated to the two Clearing Members that compose the Clearing Member Group based on each Clearing Member's risk margin allocation. In this case the 500/100 Limitation would not be applicable because the Exceedance Above Base Amount is less than $500 million and 100% of net capital. The margin call would be required to be met within one hour of the call unless OCC prescribed a different time. For example, in the case where one Clearing Member accounts for 75% of the risk margin for the Clearing Member Group, that Clearing Member would be allocated $150 million of the call and the other Clearing Member, accounting for 25% of the risk margin for the Clearing Member Group, would be allocated $50 million of the call. The funds would remain deposited with OCC until collection of all the funds to satisfy the next monthly Clearing Fund sizing calculation.

    Example 3: Clearing Member Group With $500 Million Cap

    Under OCC's stress testing the Projected Draw attributable to Clearing Member Group GHI, comprised of two Clearing Members each with net capital of $800 million, is $6.8 billion, or 87% of the Clearing Fund