Federal Register Vol. 80, No.68,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 68 (April 9, 2015)

Page Range19007-19192
FR Document

80_FR_68
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 19189 - National Public Health Week, 2015PDF
80 FR 19099 - In the Matter of AuraSound, Inc., C2C CrowdFunding, Inc., Convenience TV Inc., Global Security Agency Inc., and NewMarket Technology, Inc., Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
80 FR 19096 - In the Matter of Chatter Box Call Center Ltd., Euro Group of Companies, Inc., and Golden Century Resources Limited; Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
80 FR 19097 - In the Matter of China Education International, Inc., Delta Entertainment Group Inc., and Gulf United Energy, Inc.; Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
80 FR 19096 - Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors; Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 19070 - Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances ReviewPDF
80 FR 19073 - Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances ReviewPDF
80 FR 19110 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at the Former Stapleton International Airport, Denver, ColoradoPDF
80 FR 19109 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at the Former Stapleton International Airport, Denver, ColoradoPDF
80 FR 19106 - Notice of Intent to Rule on Request to Release Airport Property at the Former Stapleton International Airport, Denver, ColoradoPDF
80 FR 19085 - Announcement of the Board of Directors for the National Environmental Education FoundationPDF
80 FR 19084 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Active IngredientsPDF
80 FR 19072 - Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 19069 - Solid Urea From the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 19105 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at the Former Stapleton International Airport, Denver, ColoradoPDF
80 FR 19034 - Fisheries off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Trawl Rationalization Program; Midwater Trawl Fishery Season Date ChangePDF
80 FR 19079 - Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen SuitPDF
80 FR 19075 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 19093 - Zion Solutions, LLC; Zion Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2PDF
80 FR 19076 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
80 FR 19102 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19059 - 2015 Rates Charged for AMS ServicesPDF
80 FR 19092 - Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China: DeterminationPDF
80 FR 19059 - National Organic Standards Board (NOSB): Call for NominationsPDF
80 FR 19105 - Notice of Public Meeting of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Scientific Advisory BoardPDF
80 FR 19087 - Food and Drug Administration Science Forum 2015; Public WorkshopPDF
80 FR 19109 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition ReceivedPDF
80 FR 19065 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Request for Administrative Review; Food Retailers and WholesalersPDF
80 FR 19086 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19090 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request: United States and Global Human Influenza Surveillance in at-Risk SettingsPDF
80 FR 19114 - Pipeline Safety: Potential for Damage to Pipeline Facilities Caused by Flooding, River Scour, and River Channel MigrationPDF
80 FR 19116 - Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending March 28, 2015.PDF
80 FR 19092 - Proposed Information Collection: Use of iNaturalist by the National Park Service To Record Natural History ObservationsPDF
80 FR 19068 - Notice of National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship MeetingPDF
80 FR 19091 - Notice of Public Meeting; Western Montana Resource Advisory CouncilPDF
80 FR 19112 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in TexasPDF
80 FR 19087 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review; WithdrawalPDF
80 FR 19111 - Notice of Intent to Prepare a Tier I Environmental Impact Statement: Dane County, WisconsinPDF
80 FR 19105 - Social Security Ruling, SSR 15-1p; Titles II and XVI: Evaluating Cases Involving Interstitial Cystitis (IC); CorrectionPDF
80 FR 19065 - Information Collection; National Woodland Owner SurveyPDF
80 FR 19088 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 19089 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 19088 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 19090 - National Cancer Institute Amended; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 19089 - National Eye Institute; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 19067 - Information Collection; Understanding Value Trade-offs Regarding Fire Hazard Reduction Programs in the Wildland-Urban InterfacePDF
80 FR 19111 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aircraft Registration RenewalPDF
80 FR 19108 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aviation InsurancePDF
80 FR 19108 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certification of AirportsPDF
80 FR 19107 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Survey of Airman Satisfaction With Aeromedical Certification ServicesPDF
80 FR 19107 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier OperationsPDF
80 FR 19113 - Pipeline Safety: Public Workshop on Pipeline Safety Management SystemsPDF
80 FR 19097 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4.3, Record of Written ComplaintsPDF
80 FR 19099 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Rule 4758PDF
80 FR 19102 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 1 and Partial Amendment No. 2, Amending Rule 13-Equities and Related Rules Governing Order Types and ModifiersPDF
80 FR 19096 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, Amending Rule 13 and Related Rules Governing Order Types and ModifiersPDF
80 FR 19108 - Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee; MeetingPDF
80 FR 19092 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19090 - Notice of Public Meeting on the Proposed Revised Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, as Revised Through the Federal Flood Risk Management StandardPDF
80 FR 19094 - Privacy Act of 1974; Computer Matching ProgramPDF
80 FR 19068 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Mississippi Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Hear Testimony on Civil Rights Concerns Relating to Distribution of Federal Child Care Subsidies in MississippiPDF
80 FR 19075 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Permitting, Vessel Identification, and Reporting Requirements for the Pelagic Squid Jig Fishery in the Western Pacific RegionPDF
80 FR 19074 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Pacific Islands Region Coral Reef Ecosystems Permit FormPDF
80 FR 19050 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 4(d) Rule for the Georgetown SalamanderPDF
80 FR 19078 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 19064 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-School Breakfast ProgramPDF
80 FR 19037 - Modification of Significant New Uses of Certain Chemical SubstancesPDF
80 FR 19056 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; Framework AmendmentPDF
80 FR 19080 - Inquiry To Learn Whether Businesses Assert Business Confidentiality Claims Regarding Waste Import and ExportPDF
80 FR 19159 - Amendments to Registration of Food FacilitiesPDF
80 FR 19007 - Changes to Existing Conservation Program RegulationsPDF
80 FR 19020 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Transportation Conformity and Conformity of General Federal ActionsPDF
80 FR 19020 - Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District; Quantification of Emission Reductions From Incentive ProgramsPDF
80 FR 19009 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 19017 - Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 19013 - Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 19117 - Deepwater PortsPDF

Issue

80 68 Thursday, April 9, 2015 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service NOTICES 2015 Rates Charged for AMS Services, 19059-19063 2015-08162 Requests for Nominations: National Organic Standards Board, 19059 2015-08160 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Forest Service

See

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals; Withdrawals, 19087 2015-08139 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Mississippi Advisory Committee, 19068 2015-08096 Coast Guard Coast Guard PROPOSED RULES Deepwater Ports, 19118-19158 2015-06611 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Development Administration

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Commodity Credit Corporation Commodity Credit Corporation RULES Changes to Existing Conservation Program Regulations, 19007-19009 2015-08008 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Arms Sales, 19076-19078 2015-08166 Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship Meeting, 19068-19069 2015-08144 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: New Mexico; Transportation Conformity and Conformity of General Federal Actions, 19020 2015-07995 San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District; Quantification of Emission Reductions from Incentive Programs, CA, 19020-19033 2015-07972 PROPOSED RULES Significant New Uses of Certain Chemical Substances, 19037-19050 2015-08090 NOTICES Announcement of the Board of Directors for the National Environmental Education Foundation, 19085-19086 2015-08214 Inquiry to Learn Whether Businesses Assert Business Confidentiality Claims Regarding Waste Import and Export, 19080-19084 2015-08064 Pesticide Product Registrations: Applications; New Active Ingredients, 19084-19085 2015-08211 Proposed Consent Decrees, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit, 19079-19080 2015-08177 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 19009-19013 2015-07799 Cessna Aircraft Company Airplanes, 19017-19019 2015-07705 Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Airplanes, 19013-19017 2015-06785 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Aircraft Registration Renewal, 19111 2015-08122 Aviation Insurance, 19108-19109 2015-08121 Certification of Airports, 19108 2015-08119 Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations, 19107 2015-08117 Survey of Airman Satisfaction with Aeromedical Certification Services, 19107-19108 2015-08118 Meetings: Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee, 19108 2015-08106 Petitions for Exemption; Summaries, 19109 2015-08155 Requests to Release Airport Properties: Former Stapleton International Airport, Denver, CO, 19105-19107, 19109-19111 2015-08206 2015-08215 2015-08217 2015-08219 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Meetings: Proposed Revised Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, As Revised Through the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard, 19090-19091 2015-08102 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 19078-19079 2015-08092 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Dane County, WI, 19111-19112 2015-08138 Federal Agency Actions: Texas; Proposed Highway, 19112-19113 2015-08140 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19086-19087 2015-08151 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Georgetown Salamander; 4(d) Rule, 19050-19056 2015-08093 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration PROPOSED RULES Registration of Food Facilities, 19160-19188 2015-08018 NOTICES Meetings: Science Forum 2015; Public Workshops, 19087-19088 2015-08156 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: School Breakfast Program, 19064-19065 2015-08091 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; Food Retailers and Wholesalers; Request for Administrative Review, 19065 2015-08153 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Woodland Owner Survey, 19065-19067 2015-08134 Understanding Value Trade-Offs Regarding Fire Hazard Reduction Programs in the Wildland-Urban Interface, 19067-19068 2015-08128 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China, 19073-19074 2015-08221 Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 19072-19073 2015-08210 Solid Urea from the Russian Federation, 19069-19070 2015-08207 Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China, 19070-19072 2015-08222 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from China, 19092 2015-08161 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Western Montana Resource Advisory Council, 19091 2015-08141 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19092-19093 2015-08105 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: United States and Global Human Influenza Surveillance in at Risk Settings, 19090 2015-08149 Meetings: Center For Scientific Review, 19088-19089 2015-08133 National Cancer Institute, 19088 2015-08131 National Cancer Institute; Amendments, 19090 2015-08130 National Eye Institute, 19089 2015-08129 National Institute on Aging, 19089-19090 2015-08132 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries off West Coast States: Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Trawl Rationalization Program; Midwater Trawl Fishery Season Date Change, 19034-19036 2015-08194 PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; Framework Amendments, 19056-19058 2015-08069 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Pacific Islands Region Coral Reef Ecosystems Permit Form, 19074-19075 2015-08094 Pelagic Squid Jig Fishery in the Western Pacific Region; Vessel Identification, and Reporting Requirements, 19075-19076 2015-08095 Meetings: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States, 19075 2015-08173 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Use of iNaturalist by the National Park Service to Record Natural History Observations, 19092 2015-08146 National Resources Natural Resources Conservation Service RULES Changes to Existing Conservation Program Regulations, 19007-19009 2015-08008 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: ZionSolutions, LLC; Zion Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 19093-19094 2015-08169 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Privacy Act; Computer Matching Program, 19094-19096 2015-08097 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Meetings: Pipeline Safety -- Public Workshop on Pipeline Safety Management Systems, 19113-19114 2015-08115 Pipeline Safety: Potential for Damage to Pipeline Facilities Caused by Flooding, River Scour, and River Channel Migration, 19114-19116 2015-08148 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 19096 2015-08241 2015-08242 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: National Public Health Week (Proc. 9251), 19189-19192 2015-08357 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., 19097-19099 2015-08110 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 19096-19097 2015-08107 NYSE MKT LLC, 19102 2015-08108 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 19099-19102 2015-08109 Suspension of Trading Orders: AuraSound, Inc., et al., 19099 2015-08261 Chatter Box Call Center Ltd., et al., 19096 2015-08260 China Education International, Inc., et al., 19097 2015-08259 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19102-19105 2015-08165 Rulings: Evaluating Cases Involving Interstitial Cystitis; Correction, 19105 2015-08136 State Department State Department NOTICES Meetings: Presidents Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Scientific Advisory Board, 19105 2015-08157 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

NOTICES Applications: Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity, 19116 2015-08147
Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Homeland Security Department, Coast Guard, 19118-19158 2015-06611 Part III Health and Human Services Department, Food and Drug Administration, 19160-19188 2015-08018 Part IV Presidential Documents, 19189-19192 2015-08357 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 68 Thursday, April 9, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service 7 CFR Parts 610, 622, 624, 625, 652, and 662 Commodity Credit Corporation 7 CFR Parts 1455 and 1465 [Docket No. NRCS-2014-0006] RIN 0578-AA60 Changes to Existing Conservation Program Regulations AGENCY:

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Act) made several nondiscretionary changes to NRCS conservation programs. These conservation programs have existing regulations that required adjustments. These adjustments include addressing the required review of operating procedures of the State Technical Committee, adding reference of the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) to the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act program regulations, adding reference of RCPP to the Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP), expanding the definition of “acreage owned by Indian Tribes” under HFRP, revising and simplifying the Regional Equity provision, and adjusting the Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA) Program to correspond with changes to payment provisions under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Additionally, the Secretary of Agriculture delegated to NRCS administrative responsibility for implementing the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program (VPA-HIP), and internal NRCS administrative changes warrant updating the appropriate delegated official in the Technical Service Provider (TSP) provision. NRCS published an interim rule with a request for comments on August 1, 2014, to implement changes to these NRCS conservation program regulations that were either necessitated by enactment of the 2014 Act, or required to implement administrative streamlining improvements and clarifications. NRCS received six comments on the interim rule. In this document, NRCS issues a final rule to make permanent these changes and to incorporate two minor mandatory changes in two of the affected parts.

DATES:

This rule is effective April 9, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leslie Deavers, NRCS Farm Bill Coordinator, USDA, NRCS, Post Office Box 2890, Washington, DC 20013-2890; telephone: (202) 720-4531; fax: (202) 720-2998; email: [email protected], Attn: Farm Bill Program Inquiry.

Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact the USDA Technology and Accessible Resources Give Employment Today (TARGET) Center at: (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Certifications

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866; therefore, OMB will not review this final rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act: It has been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not applicable to this interim rule because NRCS is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other provision of law, to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to the subject matter of this rule.

Environmental Analysis: The 2014 Act made changes in statutory authority and administrative delegations that required conforming amendments to existing program regulations. This final rule confirms the changes made to these regulations by the interim rule. Such changes were mandatory; therefore, did not require analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. In addition, a number of minor administrative improvements were made to the regulations as a result of continuing evaluations of NRCS program implementation efforts. Such administrative changes fell within a categorical exclusion for policy development, planning, and implementation that relate to routine administrative activities (7 CFR 1b.3(a)(1)).

Civil Rights Impact Analysis: NRCS has determined through a Civil Rights Impact Analysis that this final rule discloses no disproportionately adverse impacts for minorities, women, or persons with disabilities. This final rule presents no issues that our analysis identified as posing a risk of adverse impacts. Outreach and communication strategies are in place to ensure all producers will be provided the same information to allow them to make informed compliance decisions regarding the use of their lands that will affect their participation in USDA programs. NRCS conservation programs apply to all persons equally, regardless of their race, color, national origin, gender, sex, or disability status; therefore, the conservation program rules portend no adverse civil rights implications for women, minorities, and persons with disabilities.

Paperwork Reduction Act: Section 1246 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (the 1985 Act), Public Law 99-198, states that implementation of programs authorized by Title XII of the 1985 Act be made without regard to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). NRCS is not reporting recordkeeping or estimated paperwork burden associated with this final rule for programs administered under Title XII of the 1985 Act. The non-Title XII programs, HFRP and the Emergency Watersheds Protection Program (EWPP), utilize forms that have previously been approved for use, and OMB assigned the control number 0578-0013. The changes made by this final rule do not affect the burden previously reported under 0578-0013.

Government Paperwork Elimination Act: NRCS is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act and the Freedom to E-File Act, which require Government agencies, in general, to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. To better accommodate public access, NRCS developed an online application and information system for public use.

Executive Order 13175: This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have been substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. NRCS has assessed the impact of this final rule on Indian Tribes and determined that this rule does not have Tribal implications that require Tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. The rule neither imposes substantial direct compliance costs on Tribal governments nor preempts Tribal law. The 2014 Act change addressed by this final rule that impact participation by Indian Tribes was limited to expanding land eligibility under HFRP to include trust lands. The agency has developed an outreach/collaboration plan that it has been implementing as it develops its Farm Bill policy. If a Tribe requests consultation, NRCS will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions, and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, Public Law 104-4, requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA requires NRCS to prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit assessment, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in such expenditures for State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.

This rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined under Title II of the UMRA, for State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

Executive Order 13132: NRCS considered this final rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132, issued August 4, 1999. NRCS determined that the final rule conforms with the federalism principles set out in this Executive Order, would not impose any compliance costs on the States, and would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. NRCS concludes that this final rule does not have federalism implications.

Federal Crop Insurance Reform and USDA Reorganization Act of 1994: Pursuant to section 304 of the Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994, (Pub. L. 103-354), USDA has estimated that this regulation will not have an annual impact on the economy of $100 million in 1994 dollars; therefore, is not a major regulation. A risk analysis was not conducted.

Executive Order 13211: This rule is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211, Energy Effects.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA): This rule is not a major rule under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (Pub. L. 104-121, SBREFA). Neither NRCS nor CCC is required to delay the effective date for 60 days from the date of publication to allow for congressional review. Accordingly, this rule is effective April 9, 2015.

Background: On August 1, 2014, NRCS published an interim final rule with request for comments in the Federal Register (79 FR 44635) that amended a number of agency regulations to implement mandatory changes made by the 2014 Act. The interim rule made the following changes to existing conservation program rules:

• NRCS amended 7 CFR 610.24 to update the list of Title XII programs to which the State Technical Committee Rule applies.

• NRCS amended HFRP regulation at 7 CFR 625.2 to adjust the regulatory definition of “acreage owned by Indian Tribes” to conform with the new statutory definition of the term in Section 502(e)(3) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, as amended by section 8203 of the 2014 Act.

• NRCS amended HFRP and the Watershed Operations regulation at 7 CFR part 622 to incorporate their status as programs used in the implementation of RCPP.

• NRCS updated subpart C of the TSP rule at 7 CFR part 652 to designate the Deputy Chief for Programs as the decertification official for TSPs.

• NRCS removed the regional equity rule, formerly at 7 CFR part 662, from the Code of Federal Regulations.

• NRCS amended the rule for VPA-HIP at 7 CFR part 1455 to reflect the transfer of the program's administration from the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency (FSA) to the Chief of NRCS.

• NRCS amended the rule governing the AMA Program (7 CFR part 1465) to maintain consistency with the EQIP program.

NRCS solicited comments on the interim final rule for 60 days ending September 30, 2014. Six comments were received on the rule. Overall, the commenters supported the changes made by the interim rule. This final rule makes only technical and clarifying changes to language adopted in the interim rule, and adds one additional mandatory change to reflect a change made by the 2014 Act to EWPP implementation of floodplain easements.

Summary of Comments: NRCS received two negative comments, two generally positive comments, and one comment related to the implementation of EQIP which did not pertain to any amendments made by this rule. A sixth comment received was unrelated to this or any other NRCS conservation program. The negative comments expressed opposition to the funding of VPA-HIP and HFRP. Two commenters were generally supportive of the interim rule, with one of the comments recommending that NRCS strengthen the importance of the State Technical Committees. NRCS has done so in the development of its regulations to implement the changes made by the 2014 Act. The EQIP comment related to non-lethal deterrents and strategies to reduce predator-livestock conflict and this comment will be considered with the comments submitted to the EQIP interim rule published December 12, 2014.

Additional Clarification Added to VPA-HIP (7 CFR part 1455): VPA-HIP is authorized by section 1240R of the 1985 Act. VPA-HIP provides, within funding limits, grants to State and Tribal governments to encourage owners and operators of privately held farm, ranch, and forest land to voluntarily make that land available for access by the public for wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting and fishing under programs administered by State and Tribal governments. VPA-HIP is not an entitlement program and no grant will be made unless the application is acceptable to CCC. The program was originally delegated to the Administrator of FSA to administer on behalf of CCC. The program is now delegated to the Chief of NRCS, and NRCS incorporated the necessary administrative changes in the interim rule. NRCS announced its Availability of Program Funding on May 1, 2014, to implement VPA-HIP in fiscal year 2014. During its first round of grant proposals, NRCS received requests for funding from Indian Tribes which required confirmation regarding whether Tribal lands would be considered private lands for the purposes of VPA-HIP. This final rule clarifies that governmental and Tribal lands are considered private lands for the purposes of VPA-HIP when such lands are part of a private operation of a private individual or legal entity.

Discussion of EWPP (7 CFR part 624): NRCS purchases floodplain easements to restore, protect, maintain, and enhance the functions of the floodplain; conserve natural values including fish and wildlife habitat, water quality, flood water retention, ground water recharge, and open space; reduce long-term Federal disaster assistance; and safeguard lives and property from floods, drought, and the products of erosion. Section 382 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 amended EWPP, 16 U.S.C. 2203, to authorize the purchase of floodplain easements (FPE) as an emergency measure on lands that qualify for EWPP assistance. EWPP FPEs are administered under 7 CFR part 624.

Prior to the 2014 Act, the EWPP-FPE statute did not address modification or termination of FPEs; therefore the regulations at 7 CFR part 624 specified that FPEs could not be modified or terminated. Section 2206 of the 2014 Act provided such authority, and NRCS is removing this prohibition from EWPP regulations.

List of Subjects 7 CFR Part 610

Soil conservation, State Technical Committees, Technical assistance, and Water resources.

7 CFR Part 622

Watershed projects, Watershed protection, and Flood prevention.

7 CFR Part 624

Disaster assistance, Floodplain easement, Flooding, Imminent threat, Natural disaster, and Watershed impairment.

7 CFR Part 625

Administrative practice and procedure, Agriculture, and Soil conservation.

7 CFR Part 652

NRCS, Soil conservation, and Technical assistance.

7 CFR Part 662

Administrative practice and procedure, Agriculture, and Soil conservation.

7 CFR Part 1455

Agriculture, Animals, Environmental protection, Fishing, Forests and forest products, Grant programs, Hunting, Indians, Indians-land, Natural resources, Recreation and recreation areas, Rural areas, State and local governments, and Wildlife.

7 CFR Part 1465

Conservation contract, Conservation plan, Conservation practices, and Soil and water conservation.

Accordingly, the interim rule amending 7 CFR parts 610, 622, 625, 652, 662, 1455, and 1465 which was published at 79 FR 44635 on August 1, 2014, is adopted as a final rule with the following changes:

PART 624—EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROTECTION 1. The authority citation for part 624 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Sec. 216, Pub. L. 81-516, 33 U.S.C. 701b-1; Sec. 403, Pub. L. 95-334, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 2203; 5 U.S.C. 301.

2. Amend § 624.10 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 624.10 Floodplain easements.

(c) The Chief of NRCS may modify or terminate an easement if, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 2203(b), the Chief determines the modification or termination is in the public interest and will address a compelling public need for which there is no practicable alternative.

PART 1455—VOLUNTARY PUBLIC ACCESS AND HABITAT INCENTIVE PROGRAM 3. The authority citation for part 1455 continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 714b and 714c; 16 U.S.C. 3839.

4. Section 1455.2 is amended in paragraph (b) by adding a definition for “legal entity” and revising the definition of “privately-held land” to read as follows:
§ 1455.2 Definitions.

Legal entity means any entity created under Federal or State law, excluding: (a) a local, State or Federal government or political subdivision or agency of such government; and (b) a Tribal government.

Privately-held land means farm, ranch, or forest land that is owned or operated by a person or legal entity.

Signed this 1st day of April, 2015 in Washington, DC. Jason A. Weller, Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-08008 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0123; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-040-AD; Amendment 39-18134; AD 2015-07-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of inner skin disbonding damage on a rudder. This AD requires repetitive ultrasonic inspections for disbonding of certain rudders; an elasticity of laminate checker inspection; a woodpecker or tap test inspection; venting the core, if necessary; and repairing, if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct rudder disbonding, which could affect the structural integrity of the rudder.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective May 14, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 14, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0123; or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations,M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0123.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 28, 2014 (79 FR 11355).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0039, dated February 26, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. The MCAI states:

One A310 operator found substantial inner skin disbonding damage on a rudder that was previously inspected in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A310-55-2044. The results of the subsequent investigation revealed that the most probable cause of this damage was a blunt impact with no visible damage from outside during the rudder handling. Damage like this might grow with pressure variation during ground-air-ground cycles, and tests performed with other rudders showed a rapid propagation of damage during artificial pressure cycling.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the rudder.

To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A55W002-12 [dated December 13, 2012], pending Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 27-21-21 PB401 revision to update rudder handling procedures.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires ultrasonic test (UT) inspections of the affected rudders to detect signs of disbonding and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

Required actions also include an elasticity of laminate checker inspection to detect external and internal disbonding, and a woodpecker or tap test inspection to detect external disbonding. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0123-0002.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 11355, February 28, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Requests To Exclude Certain Airplanes From AD Requirements

Airbus requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the NPRM (79 FR 11355, February 28, 2014) to mirror the language in Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A55W002-12, dated December 13, 2012, which takes into account whether or not the rudder has been removed and/or installed since the last inspection. Airbus stated that the removal/installation process is linked to the risk of the unseen damage occurring to the rudder. Airbus suggested revised language for a requirement to determine if the rudder has been removed or installed since the last inspection.

In addition, FedEx requested that we revise paragraph (c) or (g) of the NPRM (79 FR 11355, February 28, 2014) to state that, if the installed rudder has been inspected (and not removed) per AD 2008-11-05, Amendment 39-15527 (73 FR 29423, May 21, 2008), since its installation, no further inspection will be required since the unsafe condition would be alleviated.

UPS, FedEx, and Airbus requested that we revise the NPRM (79 FR 11355, February 28, 2014) to eliminate unnecessary AD tracking requirements. UPS noted that the identified risk only exists in cases where the rudder has been changed since inspection under AD 2008-11-05, Amendment 39-15527 (73 FR 29423, May 21, 2008). UPS further stated that the NPRM does not refer to AD 2008-11-05, even though the repetitive ultrasonic inspections to detect disbonding in the NPRM are identical to the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of AD 2008-11-05. Also, UPS stated that the airplane maintenance manual (AMM) has been updated as of June 1, 2013, to include the same ultrasonic inspection specified in both AD 2008-11-05 and the NPRM. UPS suggested revised wording for the NPRM.

We concur with the requests to limit the airplanes subject to the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD. This AD does relate to AD 2008-11-05 (73 FR 29423, dated May 21, 2008), in that the ultrasonic inspections are required in both ADs. This AD requires the ultrasonic inspections for only certain airplanes. Therefore, we have added a new paragraph (h)(2) in this AD. Paragraph (h)(2) of this AD specifies that, for airplanes on which it can be conclusively determined that the most recent inspection specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-55-2044 or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-55-6043 was done on the airplane; or the rudder was not removed for any reason since doing the most recent inspection specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-55-2044 or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-55-6043; no further action is necessary, except as specified in paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD.

We have also re-designated paragraphs (h), (h)(1), and (h)(2) of the NPRM as paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(1)(i), and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD, respectively.

Request To Remove Requirement To Refer to This AD in Repair Approvals

UPS requested that we revise the NPRM (79 FR 11355, February 28, 2014) to remove the requirement to include the AD reference in repair approvals. UPS noted its concerns that the NPRM will increase requests for approval of alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) and result in delays to other services and actions addressed by the FAA on a daily basis.

We concur with the commenter's request to remove from this AD the requirement that repair approvals must specifically refer to this AD. Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD. The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.

In the NPRM (79 FR 11355, February 28, 2014), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase “its delegated agent” to include “the Design Approval Holder (DAH) with a State of Design Authority's design organization approval (DOA)” to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the AD.

In its comments to the NPRM (79 FR 11355, February 28, 2014), UPS stated the following: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages or other approved EASA documents are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of a[n AD] mandated Airbus service bulletin.”

This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, EASA, or Airbus's EASA DOA.

The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.

This clarification does not remove flexibility afforded previously by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the AD Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.

Other commenters to another NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) pointed out that in many cases the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the foreign authority's MCAI may have been issued some time before the FAA AD. Therefore, the DOA may have provided U.S. operators with an approved repair, developed with full awareness of the unsafe condition, before the FAA AD is issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with the FAA AD, the operator would be required to go back to the manufacturer's DOA and obtain a new approval document, adding time and expense to the compliance process with no safety benefit.

Based on these comments, we removed the requirement from this AD that the DAH-provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a requirement in the future, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals consider the unsafe condition addressed in an AD. Any such requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process, including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate.

We have also decided not to include a generic reference to either the “delegated agent” or the “DAH with State of Design Authority design organization approval,” but instead we will provide the specific delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the DAH.

Compliance Time Clarification

In paragraph (g) of this AD, for airplanes on which the part number or serial number cannot be determined, we have revised the compliance time of “before further flight” to “within 3 months after the effective date of this AD.” This clarification corresponds to the compliance time in the MCAI. We have determined that extending the compliance time will provide an acceptable level of safety.

Conclusion

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 11355, February 28, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 11355, February 28, 2014).

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Airbus has issued AOT A55W002-12, dated December 13, 2012, including Inspection Flowchart. The service information describes, among other actions, procedures for an ultrasonic inspection along the Z-profile of the rudder side panel. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 89 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 10 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $75,650, or $850 per product.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0123; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-07-06 Airbus: Amendment 39-18134. Docket No. FAA-2014-0123; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-040-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective May 14, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, except airplanes on which modification 08827 has been embodied in production.

(1) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

(2) Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55; Stabilizers.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by a report of inner skin disbonding damage on a rudder. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct rudder disbonding, which could affect the structural integrity of the rudder.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Identification of Part Number

Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, identify the rudder assembly part number (P/N) and serial number (S/N), in accordance with Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A55W002-12, dated December 13, 2012, including Inspection Flowchart. If the part number or serial number cannot be determined, within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, identify the part number and serial number, in accordance with a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

(h) Inspections

(1) Except as provided by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, if a rudder assembly part number starting with A55471500 is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, do an ultrasonic (UT) inspection for damage (e.g., disbonding and liquid ingress) of the rudder side panel along the Z-profile and in the booster area, in accordance with Airbus AOT A55W002-12, dated December 13, 2012, including Inspection Flowchart. If any damage is found, before further flight, do the inspections to confirm disbonding damage, as specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD, in accordance with Airbus AOT A55W002-12, dated December 13, 2012.

(i) Do an elasticity of laminate checker inspection to detect external and internal disbonding of the rudder side panel along the Z-profile and in the booster area.

(ii) Do a woodpecker or tap test inspection to detect external disbonding of the rudder side panel along the Z-profile and in the booster area.

(2) For airplanes on which it can be conclusively determined that the most recent inspection specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-55-2044 or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-55-6043 was done on the airplane; or the rudder was not removed for any reason since doing the most recent inspection specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-55-2044 or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-55-6043: No further action is required by this AD, except as specified in paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD.

(i) Repair

(1) If any disbonding is confirmed during any inspection required by paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD, before further flight, repair as specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.

(i) If disbonding is less than or equal to 50 millimeters (mm) in width and less than or equal to 150 mm in length, before further flight, vent the core, using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. Within 100 flight cycles after the UT inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD is done, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

(ii) If disbonding is greater than 50 mm in width or greater than 150 mm in length, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

(2) If liquid ingress is confirmed during any inspection required by paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

(j) Inspection after Re-Installation

If any rudder has been inspected as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-55-6043, Revision 01, dated December 3, 2007; or A310-55-2044, Revision 01, dated December 3, 2007; as applicable; and has been removed and re-installed on any airplane after this inspection, that rudder must be re-inspected as required by paragraph (g) of this AD; and all applicable actions required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD must be done.

(k) Parts Installation Limitation

As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, a rudder assembly having a part number starting with A55471500, unless it has been inspected as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, and all applicable actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD have been done.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

(m) Related Information

Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0039, dated February 26, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0123-0002.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A55W002-12, dated December 13, 2012, including Inspection Flowchart. The inspection flowchart attached to this AOT is referred to in the AOT as “Appendix 1”; however, the flowchart page does not identify itself as an appendix. While the inspection flowchart page does specify the AOT document number, it does not specify a revision level or an issue date.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 27, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-07799 Filed 4-8-15; 08:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0627; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-217-AD; Amendment 39-18126; AD 2015-06-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-09-03 for all Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes. AD 2011-09-03 required repetitive eddy current inspections to detect cracks in the center wing upper and lower rainbow fittings, and corrective actions if necessary; and repetitive replacement of rainbow fittings, which would extend the repetitive interval for the next inspection. This new AD requires reduced intervals for inspections of the upper rainbow fittings. This AD was prompted by analysis of in-service cracking, which has shown that a reduction in the inspection intervals is necessary for the upper rainbow fittings. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the upper and lower rainbow fittings on the center wings, which could grow large and lead to the failure of the fitting and a catastrophic failure of the center wing.

DATES:

This AD is effective May 14, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 14, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of May 26, 2011 (76 FR 22311, April 21, 2011).

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this AD, contact Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S. Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 30063; telephone 770-494-5444; fax 770-494-5445; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/TechPubs.html. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0627.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0627; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5554; fax: 404-474-5606; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2011-09-03, Amendment 39-16665 (76 FR 22311, April 21, 2011). AD 2011-09-03 applied to all Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 17, 2014 (79 FR 55675). The NPRM was prompted by analysis of in-service cracking, which has shown that the initial and repetitive inspection schedules for the upper rainbow fitting need to be revised to reduce the probability of failure until the rainbow fitting is replaced. The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive eddy current inspections to detect cracks in the center wing upper and lower rainbow fittings, and corrective actions if necessary; and repetitive replacement of rainbow fittings, which would extend the repetitive interval for the next inspection. This AD reduces compliance times for initial and repetitive inspections of the upper rainbow fitting. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the upper and lower rainbow fittings on the center wings, which could grow large and lead to the failure of the fitting and a catastrophic failure of the center wing.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 55675, September 17, 2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 55675, September 17, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 55675, September 17, 2014).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 6, including Appendixes A, B, and C, dated July 11, 2013. The service information describes procedures for repetitive eddy current inspections of the upper and lower rainbow fittings of the center wing; repetitive replacement of the upper and lower rainbow fittings; and related investigative and corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 14 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Inspection of upper and lower fitting [retained actions from AD 2011-09-03, Amendment 39-16665 (76 FR 22311, April 21, 2011)] 20 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,700 per inspection cycle None $1,700, per inspection cycle $23,800, per inspection cycle. Fitting replacement [retained actions from AD 2011-09-03, Amendment 39-16665 (76 FR 22311, April 21, 2011)] 2,438 work-hours × $85 per hour = $207,230 per replacement $40,000 $247,230, per replacement $3,461,220, per replacement.

    This AD reduces the compliance times for the upper rainbow fitting inspections and adds no additional economic burden.

    Authority for this Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-09-03, Amendment 39-16665 (76 FR 22311, April 21, 2011), and adding the following new AD: 2015-06-08 Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company: Amendment 39-18126; Docket No. FAA-2014-0627; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-217-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 14, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2011-09-03, Amendment 39-16665 (76 FR 22311, April 21, 2011).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an analysis of in-service cracking that has shown that the rainbow fittings are susceptible to multiple site fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the upper and lower rainbow fittings on the center wings, which could grow large and lead to the failure of the fitting and a catastrophic failure of the center wing.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Initial Inspections

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2011-09-03, Amendment 39-16665 (76 FR 22311, April 21, 2011), with revised service information. Except as required by paragraph (m) of this AD, at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: Do eddy current inspections to detect cracking of the center wing upper and lower rainbow fittings on the left and right side of the airplane. Do the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 4, including Appendixes A and B, dated May 20, 2009; or Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 6, including Appendixes A and B, dated July 11, 2013. If any crack is found during the inspections required by this paragraph, before further flight, do the actions required by paragraph (k) of this AD. Doing the requirements of paragraph (m) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph for the affected upper rainbow fitting only. As of the effective date of this AD, only use Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 6, including Appendixes A and B, dated July 11, 2013, for accomplishing the actions specified in this paragraph.

    (1) Before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight hours on the rainbow fitting.

    (2) Within 365 days or 600 flight hours on the rainbow fitting after May 26, 2011, (the effective date of AD 2011-09-03, Amendment 39-16665 (76 FR 22311, April 21, 2011)), whichever occurs first.

    (h) Retained Repetitive Inspection Schedule

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2011-09-03, Amendment 39-16665 (76 FR 22311, April 21, 2011), with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph (n) of this AD, repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD at intervals not to exceed 3,600 flight hours on the center wing, until the rainbow fitting has accumulated 30,000 total flight hours. If any crack is found during the inspections required by this paragraph, before further flight, do the actions required by paragraph (k) of this AD. Doing the requirements of paragraph (n) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph for the affected upper rainbow fitting only.

    (i) Retained Rainbow Fitting Replacements

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2011-09-03, Amendment 39-16665 (76 FR 22311, April 21, 2011), with revised service information. Before the accumulation of 30,000 flight hours on the rainbow fitting, or within 600 flight hours after May 26, 2011, (the effective date of AD 2011-09-03, Amendment 39-16665 (76 FR 22311, April 21, 2011)), whichever occurs later: Replace the rainbow fitting with a new rainbow fitting, do all related investigative actions, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with paragraph 2.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 4, including Appendix C, dated May 20, 2009, except as required by paragraph (l) of this AD; or Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 6, including Appendix C, dated July 11, 2013, except as required by paragraph (l) of this AD. Replace the rainbow fitting thereafter at intervals not to exceed 30,000 flight hours. As of the effective date of this AD, only use Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 6, including Appendix C, dated July 11, 2013, for accomplishing the actions specified in this paragraph.

    (j) Retained Post-Replacement Repetitive Inspections

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2011-09-03, Amendment 39-16665 (76 FR 22311, April 21, 2011), with a new exception. For upper and lower rainbow fittings replaced in accordance with paragraph (i) or (k) of this AD: Except as required by paragraph (o) of this AD, do the eddy current inspections specified in paragraph (g) of this AD within 15,000 flight hours after doing the replacement and repeat the eddy current inspections specified in paragraph (h) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,600 flight hours until the rainbow fittings are replaced in accordance with paragraph (i) or (k) of this AD. Doing the requirements of paragraph (o) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph for the affected upper rainbow fitting only.

    (k) Retained Replacement, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective Actions

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD 2011-09-03, Amendment 39-16665 (76 FR 22311, April 21, 2011), with revised service information and revised references to inspection paragraphs. If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g), (h), (m), or (n) of this AD, any crack is detected in the rainbow fitting, before further flight, replace the rainbow fitting with a new rainbow fitting, do all related investigative actions, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with Paragraph 2.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 4, including Appendix C, dated May 20, 2009, except as provided by paragraph (l) of this AD; or Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 6, including Appendix C, dated July 11, 2013, except as required by paragraph (l) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only use Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 6, including Appendix C, dated July 11, 2013, for accomplishing the actions specified in this paragraph.

    (l) Retained Exceptions to Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD 2011-09-03, Amendment 39-16665 (76 FR 22311, April 21, 2011), with revised service information. Where Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 4, including Appendixes A, B, and C, dated May 20, 2009; or Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 6, including Appendixes A, B, and C, dated July 11, 2013; specifies to contact the manufacturer for disposition of certain repair conditions or does not specify corrective actions if certain conditions are found, this AD requires repairing those conditions using a method approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For a repair method to be approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, as required by this paragraph, the Manager's approval letter must specifically refer to this AD.

    (m) New Requirement: Reduced Initial Compliance Time for Upper Rainbow Fittings

    At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD, do eddy current inspections to detect cracking of the center wing upper rainbow fittings on the left and right side of the airplane. Do the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 6, including Appendixes A and B, dated July 11, 2013. If any crack is found during the inspections required by this paragraph, before further flight, do the actions required by paragraph (k) of this AD. Doing the requirements of this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD for that upper rainbow fitting only. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the interval required by paragraph (n) of this AD.

    (1) For upper rainbow fittings that have accumulated less than 10,000 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD, the compliance time is at the later of the times in paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and (m)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight hours.

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

    (2) For upper rainbow fittings that have accumulated 10,000 total flight hours or more, but less than 15,000 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD, the compliance time is the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (m)(2)(i) and (m)(2)(ii) of this AD.

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

    (ii) Before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight hours on the rainbow fitting.

    (n) New Requirement: Reduced Repetitive Inspection Intervals

    For upper rainbow fittings on which the requirements of paragraph (g), (h), or (m) of this AD were done, do the next inspection at the earlier of the times required in paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the inspection required by paragraph (m) of this AD at intervals not to exceed 2,500 flight hours until the upper rainbow fitting has accumulated 30,000 total flight hours. If any crack is found during the inspections required by this paragraph, before further flight, do the actions required by paragraph (k) of this AD. Doing an inspection required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD for the affected upper rainbow fitting only.

    (1) Within 3,600 flight hours since the last inspection done in accordance with paragraph (g), (h), or (m) of this AD, whichever occurs latest.

    (2) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (n)(2)(i) and (n)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Within 2,500 flight hours after the last inspection done in accordance with paragraph (g), (h), or (m) of this AD, whichever occurs latest.

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

    (o) New Requirement: Reduced Post-Replacement Repetitive Inspections

    For upper rainbow fittings replaced in accordance with paragraph (i) or (k) of this AD, do the inspection required by paragraph (m) of this AD at the earlier of the compliance times required in paragraph (o)(1) and (o)(2) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,500 flight hours. Doing the inspections required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD for the affected upper rainbow fitting only.

    (1) At the later of the times in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) and (o)(1)(ii) of this AD. (i) Within 10,000 total flight hours on the upper rainbow fitting.

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

    (2) Within 15,000 total flight hours on the upper rainbow fitting.

    (p) Credit for Previous Actions

    The service information identified in paragraphs (p)(1)(i), (p)(1)(ii), (p)(1)(iii), (p)(2), and (p)(3) is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information identified in paragraphs (p)(1)(i), (p)(1)(ii), and (p)(1)(iii) of this AD.

    (i) Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, including Appendixes A and B, dated December 7, 2004.

    (ii) Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 1, including Appendixes A and B, dated February 24, 2005.

    (iii) Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 2, including Appendixes A and B, dated February 15, 2007.

    (2) This paragraph restates paragraph (m) of AD 2011-09-03, Amendment 39-16665 (76 FR 22311, April 21, 2011). This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) of this AD, if those actions were performed before May 26, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-09-03), using Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 3, including Appendixes A, B, and C, dated April 25, 2008.

    (3) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (m), (n), and (o) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 5, including Appendixes A, B, and C, dated August 12, 2010.

    (q) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (r)(2) of this AD.

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

    (3) AMOCs approved for AD 2011-09-03, Amendment 39-16665 (76 FR 22311, April 21, 2011), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

    (r) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5554; fax: 404-474-5606; email: [email protected]

    (2) For information about AMOCs, contact Hal Horsbough, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5554; fax: 404-474-5606; email: [email protected]

    (s) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on May 14, 2015.

    (i) Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 6, including Appendixes A, B, and C, dated July 11, 2013.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on May 26, 2011 (76 FR 22311, April 21, 2011).

    (i) Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 4, including Appendixes A, B, and C, dated May 20, 2009.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S. Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 30063; telephone 770-494-5444; fax 770-494-5445; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/TechPubs.html.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 12, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06785 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0839; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-006-AD; Amendment 39-18131; AD 2015-07-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) Model 402C and 414A airplanes. This AD requires repetitively inspecting the engine mount beams for cracks and contacting Cessna for FAA-approved corrective action if cracks are found. This AD also requires sending an inspection report to the FAA and to Cessna. This AD was prompted by reports of cracks found across the engine mount beams. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective April 24, 2015.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 24, 2015.

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

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Cessna Aircraft Company, Customer service, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277; telephone: (316) 517-5800; fax: (316) 517-7271; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.cessnasupport.com. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0839.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0839; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gary Park, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1801 S. Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: (316) 946-4123; fax: (316) 946-4107; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We received reports of cracks found on the engine mount beams of certain Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) Model 402C airplanes. The cracks found run across the beam and extend beyond the doubler located under the aft engine mount and aft of the forward engine mount. Investigation revealed that the cause of the cracks is fatigue.

    The engine beam mounts of the Cessna Model 402C airplanes are the same type design as that of the Cessna Model 414A airplanes.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in failure of an engine mount beam and could lead to engine separation with consequent loss of power and loss of control. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    Relevant Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Cessna Aircraft Company Multi-engine Service Letter No. MEL-54-01, dated March 20, 2015, including the undated Attachment, “Inspection Results Form.” The Cessna Aircraft Company Multi-engine Service Letter describes procedures for inspecting the engine mount beams for cracks and reporting the inspection results to Cessna. This information is reasonably available at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0839, or you may see ADDRESSES for other ways to access this service information.

    FAA's Determination

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

    AD Requirements

    This AD requires repetitively inspecting the engine mount beams for cracks and contacting Cessna for an FAA-approved corrective action if cracks are found. This AD also requires sending the inspection results to the FAA and to Cessna.

    Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    Cessna Aircraft Company Multi-engine Service Letter No. MEL-54-01, dated March 20, 2015, including the undated Attachment, “Inspection Results Form,” specifies reporting the inspection results to Cessna. In this AD, we also require that the inspection results be reported to the FAA.

    FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because cracks in the engine mount beam could cause the engine mount beam to fail and lead to engine separation with consequent loss of power and loss of control. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

    Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2015-0839 and Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-006-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 555 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Prepare airplane for inspections 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 per inspection cycle Not applicable $255 per inspection cycle $141,525 per inspection cycle X-ray inspection of the engine mount beams (4 engine mount beams per airplane) 8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 per inspection cycle $180 $860 per inspection cycle $477,300 per inspection cycle Eddy current inspection of the engine mount beams (4 engine mount beams per airplane) 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 per inspection cycle Not applicable $85 per inspection cycle $47,175 per inspection cycle Visual inspection of the engine mount beams (4 engine mount beams per airplane) 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 per inspection cycle Not applicable $85 per inspection cycle $47,175 per inspection cycle

    We have no way of knowing the extent of cracks that may be found during the required inspections. Therefore, we have no way of determining the cost of the corrective action.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-07-03 Cessna Aircraft Company: Amendment 39-18131; Docket No. FAA-2015-0839; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-006-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 24, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Cessna Aircraft Company Model 402C airplanes, serial numbers 402C0001 through 402C1020, and Model 414A airplanes, serial numbers 414A0001 through 414A1212, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/Pylons.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks found on the engine mount beams. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the engine mount beams, which could lead to engine separation with consequent loss of power and loss of control.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspect Engine Mount Beams

    At the compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD, inspect each engine mount beam using radiographic (x-ray), eddy current, and visual methods following the Accomplishment Instructions in Cessna Aircraft Company Multi-engine Service Letter No. MEL-54-01, dated March 20, 2015. If total hours time-in-service (TIS) on an engine mount beam is unknown, use the airplane's total hours TIS.

    (1) For each engine mount beam that has accumulated less than 20,000 hours TIS, initially inspect at whichever of the following that occurs later and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 200 hours TIS as long as no cracks are found:

    (i) At or before the accumulation of 15,000 hours TIS on each engine beam; or

    (ii) Within the next 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or within the next 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    (2) For each engine mount beam that has accumulated 20,000 hours TIS but no more than 24,999 hours TIS, initially inspect at whichever of the following that occurs first and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 200 hours TIS as long as no cracks are found:

    (i) Within the next 75 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD; or

    (ii) Within the next 60 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (3) For each engine mount beam that has accumulated 25,000 hours TIS but no more than 30,000 hours TIS, initially inspect at whichever of the following that occurs first and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 200 hours TIS as long as no cracks are found:

    (i) Within the next 50 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD; or

    (ii) Within the next 45 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (4) For each engine mount beam that has accumulated more than 30,000 hours TIS, initially inspect at whichever of the following that occurs first and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 200 hours TIS as long as no cracks are found:

    (i) Within the next 25 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD; or

    (ii) Within the next 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (h) Contact Cessna Aircraft Company

    If any cracks are found during any inspection required in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD, before further flight, contact Cessna Aircraft Company at the address specified in paragraph (m)(3) of this AD for an FAA-approved corrective action developed specifically for this AD.

    (i) Reporting Requirement

    Within 10 days after each inspection required in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD or within 10 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, using the undated Attachment, “Inspection Results Form,” to Cessna Aircraft Company Multi-engine Service Letter No. MEL-54-01, dated March 20, 2015, report the results to the FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) at the address specified in paragraph (l) of this AD. Report the result of each inspection to the FAA, Wichita ACO, for one year after the date of the initial inspection required in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD. Also report the results of the initial inspection to Cessna at the address specified in paragraph (m)(3) of this AD.

    (j) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

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

    (k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

    (l) Related Information

    Gary Park, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO, FAA, 1801 S. Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: (316) 946-4123; fax: (316) 946-4107; continued operational safety email: [email protected]; engineer contact email: [email protected]

    (m) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Cessna Aircraft Company Multi-engine Service Letter No. MEL-54-01, dated March 20, 2015, including the undated Attachment, “Inspection Results Form.”

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For Cessna Aircraft Company service information identified in this AD, contact Cessna Aircraft Company, Customer service, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277; telephone: (316) 517-5800; fax: (316) 517-7271; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.cessnasupport.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0839.

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

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 30, 2015. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07705 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0938; FRL-9925-86-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Transportation Conformity and Conformity of General Federal Actions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Withdrawal of direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On February 10, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a direct final rule approving revisions to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions amend the State transportation conformity provisions and remove the State general conformity provisions from the SIP, as allowed by the 2005 amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA). The direct final rule was published without prior proposal because EPA anticipated no adverse comments. EPA stated in the direct final rule that if EPA received relevant, adverse comments by March 12, 2015, EPA would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register. EPA received a relevant, adverse comment on March 10, 2015, and accordingly is withdrawing the direct final rule, and in a separate subsequent final rulemaking will address the comment received. The withdrawal is being taken pursuant to section 110 of the CAA.

    DATES:

    The direct final rule published on February 10, 2015 (80 FR 7341), is withdrawn effective April 8, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Jeffrey Riley (6PD-L), Air Planning Section, telephone (214) 665-8542, fax (214) 665-6762, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On February 10, 2015, EPA published a direct final rule approving revisions to the New Mexico SIP. These revisions amend the State transportation conformity provisions and remove the State general conformity provisions from the SIP, as allowed by the 2005 amendments to the CAA. The direct final rule was published without prior proposal because EPA anticipated no adverse comments. EPA stated in the direct final rule that if relevant, adverse comments were received by March 12, 2015, EPA would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register. EPA received a comment on March 10, 2015 from the Sierra Club stating in relevant part, that an Acting Regional Administrator cannot sign approvals, disapprovals, or any combination of approvals or disapproval, in whole or in part, due to the fact that the authority to act on agency actions on state implementation plans is delegated only to, and therefore can only be signed by, the Regional Administrator. EPA considers this a relevant, adverse comment and accordingly is withdrawing the direct final rule. In a separate subsequent final rulemaking EPA will address the comment received. The withdrawal is being taken pursuant to section 110 of the CAA.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: March 31, 2015. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    Accordingly, the amendments to 40 CFR 52.1620 published in the Federal Register on February 10, 2015 (80 FR 7341), which were to become effective on April 13, 2015, are withdrawn.

    [FR Doc. 2015-07995 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0754; FRL-9924-69-Region 9] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District; Quantification of Emission Reductions From Incentive Programs AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of a revision to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This regulation establishes requirements and procedures for the District's quantification of emission reductions achieved through incentive funding programs implemented in the San Joaquin Valley. The effect of this action would be to make these requirements and procedures federally enforceable as part of the California SIP. Under authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), this action simultaneously approves the local rule and directs California to correct rule deficiencies.

    DATES:

    This rule will be effective on May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0754 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Idalia Pérez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3248, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Proposed Action II. Public Comments and EPA Responses III. Final Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Proposed Action

    On May 19, 2014 (79 FR 28650), EPA proposed to fully approve the following rule, which the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted for incorporation into the California SIP.

    Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted SJVUAPCD 9610 State Implementation Plan Credit for Emission Reductions Generated through Incentive Programs 06/20/13 06/26/13

    We proposed to fully approve Rule 9610 based on a proposed conclusion that the rule satisfied the applicable CAA requirements. We noted, however, that section 6.2 of the rule contained an incorrect statutory reference and inaccurately described the statutory obligations of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) with respect to disclosure of information concerning implementation of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). See 79 FR 28650 at 28657 (May 19, 2014). We strongly recommended that the District revise section 6.2 of the rule at its earliest convenience to remove the incorrect reference and to provide an accurate description of NRCS's statutory obligations with respect to disclosure of information related to EQIP. See id.

    Based on additional evaluation of this rule and in response to public comments, we continue to believe that Rule 9610 largely satisfies the applicable CAA requirements but find that the deficiencies in section 6.2 of the rule, as described in our proposed rule, necessitate a limited disapproval. We provide our rationale for this limited disapproval in our responses to comments below.

    II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received comments from the following entities:

    1. Paul Cort, Earthjustice; letter dated June 18, 2014.

    2. Seyed Sadredin, SJVUAPCD; letter dated June 17, 2014.

    We summarize these comments and provide our responses below.

    Comment 1: Earthjustice states that EPA should withdraw its proposed approval of Rule 9610 because approval of the rule will “create legal confusion over the requirements that must be met for approval of voluntary incentive measures into the State Implementation Plan (`SIP').” Earthjustice further claims that the rule adds no value to the SIP and that EPA's proposal does not fully identify all of the “legal defects” in the rule. “At best,” according to Earthjustice, “EPA's approval of Rule 9610 does nothing, because compliance with Rule 9610 will not be enough to support approval of future incentive programs into the SIP,” and at worst “it will create legal confusion over the governing criteria” and waste resources by encouraging the development of faulty programs.

    Response 1: We disagree with these comments. We believe Rule 9610 is consistent with the flexibility accorded states in incorporating discretionary, innovative and non-traditional emission reduction programs in their SIPs, under CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6). The CAA establishes a system of cooperative federalism in which EPA provides national leadership, sets standards for environmental protection and conducts oversight of state implementation, while states play a larger role in implementation of these standards including developing SIPs and adopting emission reduction measures. See CAA sections 101 and 102. Under section 110 of the Act, states have broad discretion to choose the mix of emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentive programs) that they will implement to provide for attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). See Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976) (“So long as the national standards are met, the State may select whatever mix of control devices it desires.”).

    As we explained in our proposal, Rule 9610 contains key provisions designed to establish a regulatory framework for the District's quantification of emission reductions achieved through incentive programs and to provide opportunities for EPA, CARB, and the public to review and comment on the District's evaluations on an annual basis. See 79 FR 28650 at 28652. We believe the criteria and procedures in Rule 9610 establish a useful starting point for the District's development of such programs and for public participation in the District's development of air quality plans that rely on such programs.1 Upon incorporation of Rule 9610 into the SIP, the requirements and procedures in the rule become federally enforceable against the District, enabling EPA and citizens to hold the District accountable for compliance with these requirements.

    1 EPA has promulgated regulations for statutory EIPs required under section 182(g) of the Act. See 40 CFR part 51, subpart U. For discretionary EIPs, EPA has issued guidance entitled “Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,” U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, January 2001 (EPA-45/R-01-001) (“2001 EIP Guidance”). Because the 2001 EIP Guidance is non-binding and does not represent final agency action on discretionary EIPs, EPA uses the 2001 EIP Guidance as an initial screen to evaluate potential approvability issues. Final action on any discretionary EIP occurs when EPA acts on it after its submission as a SIP revision.

    As we also stated in the proposed rule, nothing in Rule 9610 supplants the applicable requirements of the CAA, and EPA will review each SIP submittal developed pursuant to Rule 9610 and EPA guidance on a case-by-case basis, following notice-and-comment rulemaking, to determine whether the applicable requirements of the Act are met. See 79 FR 28650 at 28658. EPA specifically identified a number of shortcomings in Rule 9610 to ensure that the State and District are aware of the rule's limitations. See, e.g., 79 FR 28650 at 28656 (noting that Rule 9610 does not specifically address CAA requirements concerning funding, personnel, and implementation authority) and 28657 (discussing incorrect statutory reference in section 6.2 of Rule 9610). To the extent our proposal did not make clear that Rule 9610 in no way substitutes for the requirements of the CAA, we hereby clarify that the requirements of the CAA continue to apply to each SIP submitted by the State and District, notwithstanding any provision in Rule 9610, and that our action on this rule does not constitute an endorsement of its content as an adequate representation of the requirements of the Act. Additionally, we are finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 9610 because of the deficiencies in section 6.2 concerning disclosure of records related to the NRCS's implementation of the EQIP program. We explain our reasons for disapproving the rule on this basis in Response 3.h below.

    Given that the District's stated purpose in adopting Rule 9610 was to establish an administrative mechanism for crediting emission reductions achieved through incentive programs toward SIP requirements, EPA discussed in the proposed rule “the extent to which the requirements and procedures contained in the rule establish a framework for development of SIP submittals that satisfy the requirements of the Act, as interpreted in EPA policy on discretionary EIPs and other nontraditional emission reduction measures.” 79 FR 28650 at 28653. In the Technical Support Document (TSD), EPA also provided evaluations of the specific incentive program guidelines listed in Section 3.1 of the rule, as a “preliminary guide to assist the District in its effort to address CAA requirements in SIP submittals that rely on incentive programs going forward.” 79 FR 28650 at 28654; see also U.S. EPA Region 9 Air Division, “Technical Support Document for EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District's Rule 9610, State Implementation Plan Credit for Emission Reductions Generated through Incentive Programs,” May 2014 (hereafter “Proposal TSD”). We provided these evaluations to explain the minimum statutory requirements that apply to SIPs that rely on economic incentive programs; to inform the District of both provisions in Rule 9610 that adequately represent these requirements and shortcomings in the rule that should be corrected to avoid confusion; and to invite public comment on EPA's understanding of the way in which the District would implement Rule 9610 going forward. See, e.g., 79 FR 28650 at 28653 (discussing EPA's recommended programmatic “integrity elements” for innovative measures), 28654 (discussing EPA's recommended SIP components for innovative measures); and 28657 (recommending rule corrections to avoid confusion concerning NRCS's statutory obligations and requesting public comment on mechanisms for tracking the District's compliance with SIP commitments). EPA's limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 9610 into the SIP does not, in any way, constitute endorsement of the rule as a substitute for CAA requirements.

    Section 110 of the CAA requires each state to submit to EPA for approval a “plan which provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of each primary and secondary NAAQS, and EPA is required to approve a SIP submittal that relates to these purposes and satisfies the applicable federal requirements. See CAA section 110(k)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3) and 40 CFR 52.02(a). Rule 9610 establishes requirements and procedures for the District's quantification of reductions in emissions of NAAQS pollutants (e.g., nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5)) achieved through incentive programs and, therefore, relates to the requirements of CAA section 110. See generally San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Final Staff Report, “Proposed Rule 9610 (State Implementation Plan Credit for Emission Reductions Generated through Incentive Programs),” June 20, 2013. With the exception of the deficiencies in section 6.2 of the rule, Rule 9610 satisfies the requirements concerning enforceability in section 110(a)(2)(A) and SIP revisions in section 110(l) of the Act. See 79 FR 28650 at 28652 (summarizing rule provisions enforceable against the District) and 28658 (explaining that approval of Rule 9610 would not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and other CAA requirements) and Proposal TSD at 3-8; see also Response 3.h (discussing deficiencies in section 6.2 of Rule 9610). Additionally, EPA has reviewed Rule 9610 for conflicts with CAA requirements and identified one provision (section 6.2 of the rule) that clearly conflicts with the requirements of the Act. Based on these evaluations, we conclude that Rule 9610 satisfies the statutory requirements for approval into the SIP, except for the disclosure provision in section 6.2, which we are disapproving. See Response 3.h.

    We expect the District to address the applicable requirements of the CAA in each individual SIP submittal that relies on incentive programs, and our recommendations in both the proposal and today's final rule are intended to provide the District with general guidance on how these requirements, as interpreted in EPA guidance, apply to future SIP submittals developed pursuant to Rule 9610 and the requirements of the Act. To the extent our action on Rule 9610 and the related public process provide a forum for EPA and the public to comment on the statutory requirements that the District must address in future SIP submittals that rely on incentive programs, we view this as an important step toward clarifying the applicable CAA requirements and ensuring transparency in SIP actions going forward. In any case, as EPA stated in the proposed rule, EPA will review each SIP submittal developed pursuant to Rule 9610 (including the necessary evaluation of the applicable incentive program guidelines) on a case-by-case basis, following notice-and-comment rulemaking, to determine whether the applicable requirements of the Act are met. See 79 FR 28650 at 28654, 28658. Nothing in today's action prohibits EPA from disapproving a SIP relying on incentive-based emission reductions that fails to satisfy the requirements of the CAA.

    Comment 2: Earthjustice states that the CAA requires emission reductions resulting from incentive programs to be “quantifiable, surplus, enforceable and permanent” and asserts that the District's new definitions for these terms in Rule 9610 are an attempt to redefine these four integrity elements for “SIP creditability.” Quoting EPA's statement that “[n]othing in Rule 9610 supplants the applicable requirements of the CAA,” Earthjustice states that “compliance with the SIP-creditability definitions in Rule 9610 does not mean that a given incentive program is, in fact, SIP creditable.” Earthjustice claims that the potential confusion and conflict caused by EPA's action beg the question why EPA is approving Rule 9610 and claims that the purpose of the rule and EPA's action are not evident in the proposal. In support of these claims, Earthjustice cites a statement in the Proposal TSD in which EPA disagrees with the District's claims that Rule 9610 identifies “pre-approved incentive program guidelines” for claiming SIP credit and that certain Carl Moyer programs provide SIP creditable emission reductions. Earthjustice further asserts that the District's definitions in Rule 9610 do not meet all of EPA's criteria and that EPA's analysis of the District's definitions “notes some of these deficiencies but ignores others,” leaving readers to “puzzle through” the reason for EPA's approval of the rule.

    Response 2: We agree that the CAA requires emission reductions resulting from incentive programs to be “quantifiable, surplus, enforceable and permanent” in order to qualify for emission reduction credit in a SIP. We disagree, however, with the commenter's claim that the definitions of the terms “quantifiable,” “surplus,” “enforceable” and “permanent” in Rule 9610 represent an attempt by the District to redefine the CAA's requirements for SIP creditability. As we stated in our proposed action, the SJVUAPCD's stated intent in adopting Rule 9610 was to establish a regulatory framework to address the CAA's requirements for crediting incentive-based emission reductions in SIPs. See 79 FR 28650 at 28651. Upon incorporation of Rule 9610 into the SIP, its requirements will become federally enforceable under the CAA and thereby supplement, but not supplant, the requirements of the Act.

    As we explained in the proposed rule and further in the Proposal TSD, Rule 9610 does not represent all of the CAA requirements applicable to SIPs that rely on incentive programs for emission reduction credit (see, e.g., 79 FR 28650 at 28656, 28657 and Proposal TSD at 50-52), and we agree with Earthjustice that compliance with the SIP-creditability definitions in Rule 9610 does not necessarily mean that a given incentive program is, in fact, SIP creditable under the CAA. Additionally, as Earthjustice notes, EPA's Proposal TSD identifies several statements in the District's 2013 Annual Demonstration Report that improperly characterize the effect of compliance with the rule (e.g., the District's statement that “Section 3.1 of Rule 9610 identifies pre-approved incentive program guidelines”). See Proposal TSD at 53. As we explained in both the proposed rule and the Proposal TSD, EPA is taking no action on the incentive program guidelines as the guidelines themselves are not part of Rule 9610, and the State has not separately submitted any of these guidelines for approval into the SIP. See 79 FR 28650 at 28653, n. 7 and 28654. It follows that EPA cannot, in today's action, approve (or “pre-approve”) any of these guidelines for use in quantifying SIP emission reduction credit.2

    2 We understand that CARB and the District do not intend to submit any incentive program guidelines to EPA for approval into the SIP, given that SIP-approval of an incentive program guideline per se is not necessary to demonstrate that the emission reductions associated with that program satisfy CAA requirements for SIP emission reduction credit.

    We continue to believe, however, that the definitions of the terms “quantifiable,” “surplus,” “enforceable” and “permanent” in Rule 9610 generally represent the four fundamental “integrity elements” defined in EPA guidance for discretionary EIPs and other innovative emission reduction programs, provided the District interprets these terms consistent with our interpretations in this rulemaking, which are the bases for our limited approval of the rule.3 If the District implements Rule 9610 (including its definitions) in a manner that is consistent with EPA's interpretation and the recommendations provided in our proposed and final rulemaking documents, we expect that future SIPs developed in accordance with Rule 9610 would adequately address EPA's policy recommendations with respect to these four integrity elements.4 Conversely, to the extent the District implements Rule 9610 in a manner that departs significantly from EPA's understanding of the rule and related recommendations, we expect such future SIPs would not adequately address the requirements of the Act. Although we make no determination today concerning SIP emission reduction credit for any particular incentive program, we believe that our interpretations of Rule 9610, our related recommendations for corrections or clarifications to the rule, and our preliminary reviews of the incentive program guidelines referenced in the rule (as discussed in the Proposal TSD) provide general guidance to the State and District that will help clarify the applicable CAA requirements for future SIPs, compared to EPA inaction on Rule 9610.

    3 Should the District's implementation of Rule 9610 going forward reveal a conflict between a provision of the rule and the requirements of the CAA, EPA may exercise its authorities under CAA sections 110(k)(5) or 110(k)(6) to issue a SIP call or to revise this action as appropriate.

    4 Nothing in the comments submitted by the District on EPA's proposed rule (see Comment 6) indicates that the District disagrees with EPA's interpretation of Rule 9610, as provided in the proposed rule and Proposal TSD.

    Comment 3: Earthjustice claims that Rule 9610 does not ensure “surplus” and “enforceable” emission reductions and disagrees with several aspects of EPA's evaluation of the rule's definitions of these terms.

    Response 3: EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 9610 based on our conclusion that the rule relates to the requirements of CAA section 110 and, with one exception, satisfies the statutory criteria for approval into the SIP. See Response 1 and Response 2, above; see also Response 3.h (discussing deficiencies in section 6.2 of Rule 9610).

    Nonetheless, the commenter raises a number of important concerns regarding the adequacy of Rule 9610 as a legal framework for quantifying SIP emission reduction credit for incentive programs, and in an effort both to respond to these comments and to provide the District with specific guidance on the requirements of the Act that each SIP must satisfy, we respond below (in Response 3.a through Response 3.j) to each of these concerns.

    Comment 3.a: Earthjustice states that according to EPA, “emission reductions are surplus only if they are not otherwise required by or assumed in a SIP-related program,” any other adopted State air quality program, a consent decree, or a federal rule designed to reduce emissions of a criteria pollutant or its precursors, and that measures are only surplus for “the remaining useful life of the vehicle, engine, or equipment being replaced.” Rule 9610, on the other hand, defines “surplus” to mean that the emission reductions are “not otherwise required by any federal, state, or local regulation, or other legal mandate, and are in excess of the baseline emission inventories underlying a SIP attainment demonstration” (citing Rule 9610, section 2.27). Earthjustice claims that this definition in Rule 9610 is not consistent with EPA's definition, for example because “the District's definition leaves out various other assumptions built into SIP-related programs, such as growth factors in attainment and other plans, turnover assumptions in conformity demonstrations, etc.” and does not incorporate the “useful life” concept into its definition. Earthjustice claims that EPA's proposal gives only “short shrift” to these differences and provides an unsupported claim that the District's new definition will “treat as `surplus' only those emission reductions” that meet EPA's definition of the term.

    Response 3.a: We disagree with the commenter's claims about the definition of “surplus” in Rule 9610 and believe that this definition is generally consistent with EPA's guidance on “additionality” of emission reductions, provided the District interprets the term consistent with EPA's interpretation, as explained further below.

    Section 2.27 states that “emission reductions are surplus when they are not otherwise required by any federal, state, or local regulation, or other legal mandate, and are in excess of the baseline emission inventories underlying a SIP attainment demonstration.” First, we understand that “any federal, state, or local regulation, or other legal mandate” would include: (1) Any federal rule designed to reduce emissions of a criteria pollutant or its precursors (e.g., a new source performance standard or federal mobile source requirements); (2) any State or local regulation concerning air pollutant emissions; and (3) any obligation in a consent decree, settlement agreement, or other legal mandate. Read accordingly, the definition would prohibit emission reductions required by any of these types of legal obligations from being treated as “surplus.” Second, we understand that the phrase “baseline emission inventories underlying a SIP attainment demonstration” means the projection year emission inventories that provide the basis for the attainment-related demonstrations in a SIP. Read accordingly, emission reductions “in excess of the baseline emission inventories underlying a SIP attainment demonstration” would mean emission reductions that go beyond those already assumed in a SIP-related program, taking into account growth factors, assumptions concerning fleet turnover, and other relevant planning assumptions—that is, any emission reductions assumed in a SIP-related program (e.g., an attainment or reasonable further progress plan or a transportation conformity demonstration) would not be treated as “surplus.”

    Read in its entirety, section 2.27 provides that only those emission reductions that are not otherwise required by or assumed in a SIP-related program, any other adopted State air quality program, a consent decree, or a federal rule designed to reduce criteria pollutant or precursor emissions will qualify for treatment as “surplus” emission reductions, consistent with EPA's definition of the term in longstanding guidance. See, e.g., “Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction Programs in State Implementation Plans (SIPs),” EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, October 24, 1997 (hereafter “1997 VMEP”) at 6; “Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,” EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, January 2001 (hereafter “2001 EIP Guidance”) at 35; “Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a State Implementation Plan,” EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, September 2004 (hereafter “2004 Emerging and Voluntary Measures Guidance”) at 3; and “Diesel Retrofits: Quantifying and Using Their Emission Benefits in SIPs and Conformity,” EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, February 2014 (hereafter “2014 Diesel Retrofits Guidance”) at 27.

    One component of EPA's various policy recommendations that the definition of “surplus” in section 2.27 does not explicitly address is the recommendation concerning the remaining useful life of the vehicle, engine, or equipment being replaced. See 2014 Diesel Retrofits Guidance at 30 (recommending that states “consider factors that may affect emission reductions and their surplus status overtime, including changing patterns of operations or use, vehicle deterioration factors, equipment useful life, and government emission standards”). Rule 9610 does, however, contain a definition of “project life” in section 2.20 that addresses this recommendation. Specifically, section 2.20 defines “project life” to mean “the period of time over which an incentive program project achieves SIP-creditable emission reductions” and states that “[p]roject life shall not exceed the useful life of equipment, vehicles, or practices funded through incentive programs, and may vary across incentive programs and project types.” As we explained in the Proposal TSD, in future SIP submittals developed pursuant to Rule 9610, we expect the State and/or District will demonstrate: (1) How the “project life” for each funded project relied on for SIP credit takes into account the remaining useful life of the vehicle, engine, or equipment being replaced, and (2) how the State and/or District ensure that the emission reductions relied on for SIP credit are in excess of the reductions attributed to normal fleet turnover and other assumptions built into future year emissions inventories (i.e., that the same emission reductions are not “double counted”). See Proposal TSD at 18 and 48.

    Comment 3.b: Earthjustice asserts that EPA's analysis of the District's definition of “enforceable” is arbitrary. Quoting from section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA and EPA's interpretative statements in “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990” (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) (hereafter “General Preamble”), Earthjustice states that even those “nontraditional techniques” for reducing pollution authorized by section 110(a)(2)(A) must be “enforceable.” Additionally, Earthjustice quotes from an EPA docket memorandum for a rulemaking entitled “State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction,” February 4, 2013 (hereafter “2013 SSM Memo”), in which EPA highlights the importance of the EPA and citizen enforcement authorities established by Congress to ensure compliance with CAA requirements and states that SIP provisions that function to bar effective enforcement by the EPA or citizens for violations would be inconsistent with the regulatory scheme established in title I of the Act. Earthjustice quotes from this memorandum to support its assertion that according to EPA policy, SIPs must be built upon emission reductions that are “enforceable,” meaning that “EPA and citizens must have the ability to bring enforcement actions to assure compliance.” For example, Earthjustice states, EPA will not approve control measures that include “director discretion” to define or redefine compliance requirements and also will “not allow SIPs to include state affirmative defenses that would foreclose EPA or other enforcement.” Earthjustice further asserts that “[a] state cannot claim SIP credit from control measures that shield pollution sources from independent enforcement actions.” Earthjustice also references the 2001 EIP Guidance in support of these arguments.

    Response 3.b: We agree that under the CAA, as interpreted in EPA policy, all measures approved into a SIP, including those “nontraditional techniques” for reducing pollution identified in section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act, must be “enforceable” to qualify for SIP emission reduction credit and that EPA and citizens must be able to bring enforcement actions to assure compliance. See, e.g., General Preamble at 13556. We disagree, however, with the claim that EPA's analysis of the definition of “enforceable” in Rule 9610 is arbitrary.

    In our proposed rule and Proposal TSD, we compared the Rule 9610 definition of “enforceable” with EPA's recommended enforceability factors for voluntary and other nontraditional emission reduction measures, and we found the Rule 9610 definition to be generally consistent with EPA's recommendations. See 79 FR 28650 at 28654 (discussing components of Rule 9610, section 2.8 that reflect EPA recommendations) and Proposal TSD at 8-11. Specifically, we highlighted key components of EPA's policy recommendations concerning enforceability and found that the District's definition of the term “ensures that the District will treat as `enforceable' only those emission reductions that can, as a practical matter, be independently verified and that result from a program or measure that defines violations clearly, allows for identification of responsible parties, requires grantees to provide all records needed to demonstrate that emission reductions are achieved, and provides for public access to emissions-related information.” See 79 FR 28650 at 28653, 28654. We provided these analyses not to support a regulatory determination concerning the enforceability of any particular incentive program or air quality plan that relies on incentive programs, as no such program or plan is before us in this action, but rather to highlight the District's obligation under Rule 9610 to ensure that any incentive program relied upon in a SIP requires documentation adequate for EPA and the public to independently verify that the necessary emission reductions have occurred. See 79 FR 28650 at 28654 (noting District's obligation to demonstrate, in each SIP submittal that relies on an incentive program, that the emission reductions relied upon to satisfy SIP requirements are surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, and permanent).5 That is, we highlighted these provisions of section 2.8 of Rule 9610 in an effort to ensure that future SIPs that rely on incentive programs in the SJV will, at minimum, satisfy the rule's enforceability requirements, which reflect important components of EPA's recommendations concerning enforceability under the CAA. See 79 FR 28650 at 28654.

    5 Such documentation is necessary to hold the District accountable for any SIP commitments developed in accordance with Section 7.0 of Rule 9610, as explained further in Response 3.h.

    Earthjustice asserts generally that “[a] state cannot claim SIP credit from control measures that shield pollution sources from independent enforcement actions.” But nothing in Rule 9610 shields pollution sources from independent enforcement actions and Earthjustice does not identify any provision that does so. As further explained in Response 3.d., the CAA authorizes EPA and citizens to enforce requirements of an “applicable implementation plan” 6 and certain requirements of the Act. See CAA sections 113 and 304(a), 42 U.S.C. 7413, 7604(a). Specifically, under section 113 of the Act, EPA may bring an enforcement action against any individual or government agency for violation of “any requirement or prohibition of an applicable implementation plan,” 7 and under section 304(a) citizens may bring suit against any individual or government agency alleged to be in violation of “an emission standard or limitation,” including a schedule or timetable of compliance which is in effect under an applicable implementation plan.8 To the extent Earthjustice intended to argue that Rule 9610 would “shield” pollution sources from an action to enforce the requirements of an “applicable implementation plan”—e.g., the requirements of an EPA-approved SIP—we disagree as Rule 9610 does not apply to any pollution source. See 79 FR 28650 at 28652 (“the requirements and procedures in [Rule 9610] apply only to the District . . . [and] would become federally enforceable against the District upon EPA's final approval of the rule into the California SIP”) (emphases added). Earthjustice does not identify any provision in Rule 9610 that would apply to a pollution source or preclude enforcement of SIP requirements against a pollution source.

    6 Section 302(q) of the CAA defines “applicable implementation plan,” in relevant part, as “the portion (or portions) of the implementation plan, or most recent revision thereof, which has been approved under section 110 of [title I of the Act] . . . and which implements the relevant requirements of [the Act].” 42 U.S.C. 7602(q).

    7 Section 113 of the CAA authorizes EPA to issue notices and compliance orders, assess administrative penalties, and bring civil actions against any “person,” including a state agency, who “has violated or is in violation of any requirement or prohibition of an applicable implementationplan. . . .” CAA 113(a)(1)-(2), 42 U.S.C. 7413(a)(1)-(2); CAA 302(e), 42 U.S.C. 7602(e) (defining “person” to include a State or political subdivision thereof).

    8 Section 304(a)(1) of the CAA authorizes any person to bring a civil action against any “person,” including a state agency (to the extent permitted by the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution), “who is alleged to have violated or to be in violation of . . . an emission standard or limitation. . . .” 42 U.S.C. 7604(a)(1); CAA 302(e), 42 U.S.C. 7602(e) (defining “person” to include a State or political subdivision thereof). An “emission standard or limitation” is defined in section 304(f), in relevant part, to mean “a schedule or timetable of compliance” which is in effect under the Act “or under an applicable implementation plan.” 42 U.S.C. 7604(f)(1). “Schedule and timetable of compliance” is broadly defined in section 302(p) to mean “a schedule of required measures including an enforceable sequence of actions or operations leading to compliance with an emission limitation, other limitation, prohibition, or standard.” 42 U.S.C. 7602(p).

    We understand that Earthjustice may have intended to argue that Rule 9610 would encourage future development of programs that preclude EPA or citizen enforcement against pollution sources, rather than to comment on the enforceability of Rule 9610 itself.9 Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), however, the relevant inquiry is not whether EPA or citizens may directly sue pollution sources but whether the “measure,” “means,” or “technique” for reducing emissions is “enforceable.” Section 110 of the Act requires that each SIP include “enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate” to meet the Act's requirements. CAA 110(a)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(A). Thus, according to the plain language of the statute, SIPs may contain “means” or “techniques” including economic incentives and/or “schedules and timetables for compliance” that EPA considers “appropriate” for attainment, so long as they are “enforceable.” Courts have long held that citizen suits can be brought to enforce specific measures, strategies, or commitments by state or local agencies that are designed to ensure compliance with the NAAQS. See, e.g., BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003), reh'g denied, BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 215 (5th Cir. 2004); Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. James Busey et al., 79 F.3d 1250, 1258 (1st Cir. 1996) (citing, inter alia, Wilder v. EPA, 854 F.2d 605 at 613-14) and Citizens for a Better Env't v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, 1454-59 (N.D. Cal.), modified, 746 F. Supp. 976 (1990).

    9 Earthjustice does not appear to question EPA's statement that Rule 9610 itself is enforceable against the District and that our approval of the rule would make it federally enforceable by EPA and citizens under the CAA.

    Nothing in Rule 9610 undermines the ability of EPA or citizens to bring enforcement actions to assure compliance with SIP requirements, nor does the rule contain or authorize the District to develop any “director discretion” or “affirmative defense” provision that will apply to SIP requirements. To the contrary, section 7.0 of Rule 9610 requires that the District maintain responsibility for ensuring that SIP emission reductions occur through an “enforceable commitment,” which becomes federally enforceable by EPA and citizens upon approval into the SIP under CAA section 110(k). See 79 FR 28650 at 28655 (citing Rule 9610, section 7.0). EPA has approved enforceable commitments in the past and courts have enforced these commitments against states that failed to comply with them. See, e.g., American Lung Ass'n of N.J. v. Kean, 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 1987), aff'd, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC, Inc. v. N.Y. State Dept. of Env. Cons., 668 F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens for a Better Env't v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. Granted in par, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition for Clean Air v. South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist., No. CV 97-6916-HLH (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 1999). We believe it is appropriate to allow California to rely in its SIP on voluntary incentive programs, provided the State and/or District retain clear responsibility through an enforceable commitment to ensure that the emission reductions necessary to meet applicable CAA requirements are achieved, which EPA or citizens may enforce under sections 113 or 304 of the Act, respectively.

    As we noted previously, following the State's submittal of a specific air quality plan or measure that relies on incentive programs for necessary emission reductions, EPA will evaluate that plan or measure to determine whether it satisfies the enforceability requirements of the Act. We provide these responses to the commenter's concerns only as a preliminary explanation of the enforceability requirements that future SIPs developed through the Rule 9610 process must satisfy, and we encourage the commenter and the public at large to participate in future rulemakings on specific air quality plans or measures that rely on incentive programs for SIP emission reduction credit.

    Comment 3.c: Citing a 2004 guidance entitled, “Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a State Implementation Plan” (September 2004) (hereafter “2004 Emerging and Voluntary Measures Guidance”), Earthjustice states that according to EPA, “emission reductions are `voluntary,' and therefore subject to a cap on SIP credit, when the emission reductions are not enforceable against individual sources.” According to Earthjustice, “Rule 9610 suggests that measures could be SIP creditable even if EPA and the public have to rely entirely on the State and local air District to ensure source compliance,” and that this runs counter to EPA's longstanding policy and statutory interpretations, under which EPA “has only been willing to allow such programs with a cap on the SIP credit that can be claimed.”

    Response 3.c: We agree with Earthjustice's characterization of “voluntary” measures as those that are not directly enforceable against individual emission sources. See, e.g., 1997 VMEP at 4; 2004 Emerging and Voluntary Measures Guidance at 1, 19; and 2005 Bundled Measures Guidance at 2, n. 1. We disagree, however, with the commenter's suggestion that emission reductions from voluntary measures are “subject to” a specific cap on SIP emission reduction credit because they are unenforceable for SIP purposes under the CAA.

    Under longstanding guidance, EPA has recommended presumptive limits (sometimes referred to as “caps”) on the amounts of emission reductions from certain voluntary and other nontraditional measures that may be credited in a SIP. Specifically, for voluntary mobile source emission reduction programs (VMEPs),10 EPA has identified a presumptive limit of three percent (3%) of the total projected future year emission reductions required to attain the appropriate NAAQS, and for any particular SIP submittal to demonstrate attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or progress toward attainment (RFP), 3% of the specific statutory requirement. See 1997 VMEP at 5. As explained in the 2001 EIP Guidance, EPA recommended this 3% cap (per pollutant) on the credit allowed for VMEPs because states are “not required to play a direct role in implementing these programs, the programs are not directly enforceable against participating parties, and there may [be] less experience in quantifying the emission benefits from these programs.” 2001 EIP Guidance at 158; see also 1997 VMEP at 5 (recommending 3% cap due to “innovative nature of voluntary measures and EPA's inexperience with quantifying their emission reductions”). For voluntary stationary and area source measures, EPA has identified a presumptive limit of 6% of the total amount of emission reductions required for RFP, attainment, or maintenance demonstration purposes. See 2004 Emerging and Voluntary Measures Guidance at 9 (“EPA believes it is appropriate to limit these measures to a small portion of the SIP given the untested nature of the control mechanisms”) and “Incorporating Bundled Measures in a State Implementation Plan (SIP),” August 2005 (hereafter “2005 Bundled Measures Guidance”) at 8 (recommending limits “[d]ue to the innovative nature of voluntary and emerging measures”). EPA has also long stated, however, that states may justify higher amounts of SIP emission reduction credit for voluntary programs on a case-by-case basis, and that EPA may approve measures for SIP credit in excess of the presumptive limits “where a clear and convincing justification is made by the State as to why a higher limit should apply in [its] case.” 2004 Emerging and Voluntary Measures Guidance at 9; see also 2005 Bundled Measures Guidance at 8, n. 6 and 2014 Diesel Retrofits Guidance at 12. Thus, the presumptive “cap” on SIP credit referenced by Earthjustice is not a specific regulatory cap but a general policy recommendation, which states and EPA may justify departing from on a case-by-case basis, subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking on a particular SIP.

    10 A voluntary mobile source emission reduction program (VMEP) is a mechanism that supplements traditional emission reduction strategies through voluntary, nonregulatory changes in local transportation sector activity levels or changes in in-use vehicle and engine fleet composition, among other things. See 1997 VMEP at 3.

    Importantly, EPA has consistently stated that SIP credit may be allowed for a voluntary or other nontraditional measure only where the State submits enforceable mechanisms to ensure that the emission reductions necessary to meet applicable CAA requirements are achieved—e.g., an enforceable commitment to monitor and report on emission reductions achieved and to rectify any shortfall in a timely manner. See 79 FR 28650 at 28653 (citing, inter alia, 1997 VMEP at 4-7; 2004 Emerging and Voluntary Measures Guidance at8-12; 2005 Bundled Measures Guidance at 7-12; and 2004 Electric-Sector EE/RE Guidance at 6-7). Thus, if California intends to satisfy a SIP requirement through reliance on an incentive program that EPA and citizens may not directly enforce against participating sources, the State/District must take responsibility for assuring that SIP emission reduction requirements are met through an enforceable commitment, which EPA and citizens may enforce against the State/District upon EPA's approval of the commitment into the SIP. EPA continues to believe that voluntary incentive measures accompanied by an enforceable commitment to monitor emission reductions achieved and timely rectify any shortfall meet the SIP control measure requirements of the Act. See Response 3.b above.

    Should California submit a SIP that relies on incentive programs to satisfy a CAA requirement, EPA intends to evaluate the submittal to determine whether the necessary emission reductions may be enforced by EPA and citizens through an enforceable State/District commitment. Additionally, should such a SIP rely on incentive-based emission reductions in amounts that exceed EPA's presumptive limits, as discussed in EPA's longstanding guidance, EPA intends to evaluate the SIP submittal to determine whether the State and/or District have provided a clear and convincing justification for such higher amounts.

    Comment 3.d: Citing both the 2001 EIP Guidance and the 2004 Emerging and Voluntary Measures Guidance, Earthjustice states that emission reductions are “enforceable” against the source if: (1) They are independently verifiable; (2) program violations are defined; (3) those liable for violations can be identified; (4) the District, State and EPA maintain the ability to apply penalties and secure appropriate corrective actions where applicable; (5) citizens have access to all the emissions-related information obtained from the source; (6) citizens can file suits against sources for violations; and (7) they are practicably enforceable in accordance with other EPA guidance on practicable enforceability. Earthjustice states that EPA's proposed rule recites all of these criteria except for citizen suit enforceability and questions whether this was an oversight or a deliberate attempt to mislead the public on the criteria for enforceability. In any case, Earthjustice contends that “nothing in Rule 9610 would require incentive programs to provide for such citizen enforcement” and that the rule “would only require that violations be defined through contracts, [which] can only be enforced by the parties to the contract.” Earthjustice asserts that citizens would have no recourse to “file suits against sources for violations,” and that EPA's proposal includes “no explanation of how this requirement is met or why it does not apply.” To the extent EPA believes it is the latter, Earthjustice states, “it has now afforded the public no opportunity to respond to any reasoning behind that assertion.”

    Response 3.d: First, to the extent the commenter argues that all SIP emission reduction techniques must provide for citizen suits directly against emission sources, we disagree. Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act explicitly includes “economic incentives” among the “control measures, means, or techniques” that states may use to meet SIP requirements, and EPA has long interpreted the Act to allow SIPs to rely on nontraditional emission reduction techniques—including voluntary measures that are not directly enforceable against emitting sources—provided the State submits enforceable mechanisms to assure that the requirements of the Act are met. See Response 3.b and Response 3.c, above. As Earthjustice correctly notes, EPA's 2001 EIP Guidance states that emission reductions and related actions are “enforceable” if, among other things, “[c]itizens can file suits against sources for violations. . . .” 2001 EIP Guidance at 35-36.11 As with all guidance, however, the 2001 EIP Guidance provides only non-binding recommendations and does not represent final agency action concerning the requirements for SIPs containing discretionary EIPs. See id. at 12, 19, and 119. Moreover, in several other policies concerning nontraditional measures, EPA has indicated that provisions for citizen suits against a state or other responsible entity (other than the emission source) may suffice to meet the Act's enforceability requirements. See Response 3.c above. For example, the 2004 Emerging and Voluntary Measures Guidance recommends provisions authorizing citizen suits against sources for “emerging measures” 12 but states that for “voluntary measures,” emission reductions and other required actions are enforceable if, among other things, “EPA maintains the ability to apply penalties and secure appropriate corrective action from the State where applicable and the State maintains the [ability to] secure appropriate corrective action with respect to portions of the program that are directly enforceable against the source. . . .” 2004 Emerging and Voluntary Measures Guidance at 3, 4 (emphases added); see also 2005 Bundled Measures Guidance at 25 (also discussing EPA enforcement against State) and 1997 VMEP at 6-7 (“[a] State's obligations with respect to VMEPs must be enforceable at the State and Federal levels”) (emphasis added). In other guidance concerning nontraditional emission reduction measures, EPA has indicated that provisions for enforcement against a “responsible party” may be acceptable in lieu of enforcement directly against the emitting source. See, e.g., “Guidance on SIP Credits for Emission Reductions from Electric-Sector Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Measures,” August 5, 2004 (hereafter “2004 Electric-Sector EE/RE Guidance”) at 5, 6 (distinguishing emission reductions that are “enforceable directly against the source” from those that are “enforceable against another party responsible for the energy efficiency or renewable energy activity”) and 2014 Diesel Retrofits Guidance at 28 (emission reductions are federally enforceable only if, among other things, “[c]itizens can file lawsuits against the responsible party for violations”) (emphases added). Thus, a number of EPA policies concerning nontraditional measures indicate that provisions for EPA and citizen enforcement against the State or against some other “responsible party” other than the source may satisfy the Act's requirements for enforceability. Earthjustice fails to identify any statutory or regulatory support for a claim that all emission reduction measures approved into a SIP must provide for citizen suits directly against emitting sources.

    11 The 2001 EIP Guidance states that “[e]mission reductions use, generation, and other required actions are enforceable if”: (1) They are independently verifiable; (2) program violations are defined; (3) those liable for violations can be identified; (4) the State and EPA maintain the ability to apply penalties and secure appropriate corrective actions where applicable; (5) citizens have access to all the emissions-related information obtained from the source; (6) citizens can file suits against sources for violations; and (7) they are practicably enforceable in accordance with other EPA guidance on practicable enforceability. See 2001 EIP Guidance at 35-36.

    12 EPA has described “emerging measures” as new emission reduction measures for which pollutant reductions are more difficult to accurately quantify than traditional SIP emission reduction measures. See 2004 Emerging and Voluntary Measures Guidance at 13 and 2005 Bundled Measures Guidance at 2.

    Second, Earthjustice's claim that Rule 9610 “would only require that violations be defined through contracts” which “can only be enforced by the parties to the contract” overlooks an important provision in the rule that requires the District to provide a mechanism for EPA and citizen enforcement in each submitted SIP that relies on an incentive program. Specifically, section 7.0 of Rule 9610 requires that each SIP submission in which the District relies on projections of SIP-creditable emission reductions to satisfy a CAA SIP requirement contain, among other things, an “enforceable commitment” that: (1) Identifies the applicable incentive program guidelines; (2) identifies emission reductions not to exceed the amount projected to be achieved through the use of secured or reasonably anticipated incentive program funding and the estimated availability of projects and willing participants, based on historical participation and estimates of remaining equipment; (3) is specifically adopted by the District as part of the SIP and accounted for in annual demonstration reports; and (4) states that “if either the District or EPA finds that there is a SIP shortfall for a particular year, the District will adopt and submit to EPA, by specified dates, substitute rules and measures that will achieve equivalent emission reductions as expeditiously as practicable and no later than any applicable implementation deadline in the Clean air Act or EPA's implementing regulations.” See 79 FR 28650 at 28655 (citing Rule 9610, sections 7.1-7.4). A District commitment adopted in accordance with these requirements would, upon approval into the SIP, become enforceable by EPA and citizens under sections 113 and 304 of the Act, respectively. See Response 3.b. Thus, although Rule 9610 does not require that incentive programs provide for citizen enforcement directly against emission sources for contract violations,13 the rule does require that each SIP in which the District relies on incentive program emission reductions contain, among other things, an enforceable commitment that enables EPA and citizens to hold the District accountable for violations of the SIP. We therefore disagree with the commenter's suggestion that Rule 9610 deprives citizens of the ability to enforce SIP emission reduction requirements.

    13 Under the Carl Moyer, Prop 1B, and EQIP funding programs, each grantee must sign a contract specifying terms and conditions of the grant which are enforceable by the funding agency. See, e.g., CARB, “The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, Approved Revisions 2011,” Release Date: July 11, 2014, at Chapter 3, Section Y (“Minimum Contract Requirements”) (available electronically at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2011gl/2011cmpgl_12_30_14.pdf).

    Finally, with respect to Earthjustice's claim that EPA's proposal provides “no explanation of how this requirement is met or why it does not apply,” it appears that Earthjustice is referring to EPA's policy recommendation concerning citizen suits against emission sources as a “requirement.” As discussed above in this response, however, the CAA does not limit SIPs to those emission reduction techniques that citizens may directly enforce against an emission source, nor do EPA's guidance documents establish any requirement that nontraditional emission reduction measures provide specifically for citizen suits against sources. In our proposed rule, we referenced numerous EPA guidance documents addressing nontraditional emission reduction measures that “provide for some flexibility in meeting established SIP requirements for enforceability and quantification, provided the State takes clear responsibility for ensuring that the emission reductions necessary to meet applicable CAA requirements are achieved.” 79 FR 28650 at 28653 (citing, inter alia, 1997 VMEP, 2004 Emerging and Voluntary Measures Guidance, and 2005 Bundled Measures Guidance). Consistent with these guidance documents, our proposed rule highlighted the importance of the enforceable “backstop” commitment from the State to monitor emission reductions achieved and to rectify shortfalls in a timely manner, which must accompany any nontraditional emission reduction measure submitted for SIP purposes. Id. and 79 FR 28650 at 28654-55 (discussing necessary components of a SIP submittal that relies on nontraditional emission reduction measures). Our proposed rule also discussed the requirements concerning enforceable SIP commitments in section 7.0 of Rule 9610 and provided specific recommendations for the District to consider in its development and adoption of such commitments, to ensure that the requirements of the Act are met. Id. at 28655. We believe these explanations are adequate to inform the public of EPA's policies concerning enforceability of nontraditional emission reduction measures and to provide a preview of the factors that EPA intends to apply in reviewing enforceable commitments submitted by the District going forward. As EPA also explained at proposal, EPA will review each SIP submittal developed pursuant to Rule 9610 (including the necessary evaluation of the applicable incentive program guidelines) on a case-by-case basis, following notice-and-comment rulemaking, to determine whether the applicable requirements of the Act are met. See 79 FR 28650 at 28654, 28658.

    To the extent the commenter disagrees with EPA's interpretations of the Act, we encourage the commenter to submit comments on the SIP rulemakings through which EPA takes final action on air quality plans or measures that rely on incentive program emission reductions. Nothing in our approval of Rule 9610 today deprives the public of these opportunities to comment on these future SIP actions.

    Comment 3.e: Earthjustice states that “[t]he structure of the CAA reinforces EPA's conclusion that Congress was not willing to rely on states alone to guarantee that the claimed emission reductions would occur or be enforced.” According to Earthjustice, section 113 of the Act gives EPA authority to ensure compliance whenever any person is in violation of any requirement of the Act and section 304 allows citizens to enforce the requirements of the Act. Earthjustice also quotes from the Supreme Court's decision in Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 560 (1986), to support its statement that Congress enacted section 304 specifically to encourage citizen participation in the enforcement of standards and regulations established under the Act and “to afford citizens very broad opportunities to participate in the effort to prevent and abate air pollution.”

    Response 3.e: We do not dispute the importance of federal enforcement under section 113 of the Act and citizen enforcement under section 304 of the Act. As explained in our proposed rule and further in these responses to comments, EPA has consistently stated in longstanding guidance that SIP credit may be allowed for a voluntary or other nontraditional emission reduction measure only where the State submits enforceable mechanisms to ensure that the emission reductions necessary to meet applicable CAA requirements are achieved (e.g., an enforceable commitment to monitor and report on emission reductions achieved and to timely rectify any shortfall), which EPA and citizens may enforce under CAA sections 113 and 304, respectively, upon approval into the SIP. See 79 FR 28650 at 28653-28655 and Response 3.b above. We encourage citizens to participate in the effort to prevent and abate air pollution by requesting information from the District concerning the commitments it has adopted under Rule 9610 and enforcing these commitments in the U.S. district courts in accordance with section 304 of the Act.

    Comment 3.f: Earthjustice claims that the Rule 9610 definition of “enforceable” would not only waive any notion that citizens can file a suit to enforce the reductions but “would also waive any requirement that EPA have any `ability to apply penalties and secure appropriate corrective actions' against the source.” The commenter asserts that EPA cannot enforce the conditions of a contract between the District and the source and that “the State and District are free to shield sources from enforcement, or even amend or rescind these contracts altogether without EPA oversight.” According to Earthjustice, “EPA simply has no claim that it can apply penalties or secure corrective actions against the sources responsible for reducing emissions” and “no basis for asserting that [the enforceability] criterion is met.”

    Response 3.f: Although we agree that EPA cannot enforce the conditions of a contract issued by the District pursuant to a state incentive program that is not approved into the SIP under CAA section 110, we disagree with the claim that this renders the emission reductions achieved by such a program unenforceable by citizens under the Act. As explained in response to comment 3.d., above, Rule 9610 requires the District to provide a mechanism for EPA and citizen enforcement in each submitted SIP that relies on an incentive program. Specifically, section 7.0 of Rule 9610 requires that each SIP submission in which the District relies on projections of SIP-creditable emission reductions to satisfy a CAA SIP requirement contain, among other things, an “enforceable commitment” containing specific provisions to ensure that the District remains accountable for the required emission reductions. Upon EPA's approval of an enforceable SIP commitment by the District, section 113 of the Act authorizes EPA to apply penalties and secure appropriate corrective actions to enforce the requirements of the commitment against the District. See Response 3.b. A SIP-approved commitment cannot be modified except through a SIP revision adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public hearing and approved by the EPA through notice-and-comment rulemaking. See CAA section 110(l); 5 U.S.C. 553; 40 CFR 51.105. Consequently, should the District's amendment or rescission of contracts issued to participating sources result in a shortfall in the emission reductions required under a SIP commitment, EPA may enforce the District's obligation to implement a remedy, provided the District's SIP commitment includes a schedule for adoption and submittal of substitute measures to remedy any shortfalls as required by Rule 9610. See Rule 9610, section 7.4; see also Response 3.d above (discussing requirements of Rule 9610, section 7.0). EPA would not approve a submitted SIP revision under Rule 9610 that did not contain such a schedule.

    Comment 3.g: Earthjustice states that “EPA seems to imply that it is enough that EPA can push for the District to fulfill any shortfall in emission reductions through other means” but claims that EPA “has not analyzed this rule through the relevant criteria for enforceable SIP commitments, which are subject to limits on quantity, etc.” As a result, Earthjustice asserts that commenters have no basis for unraveling EPA's legal rationale.

    Response 3.g: Because we are not approving any State or District commitments in today's action, it is not necessary to evaluate this SIP submittal in accordance with the criteria that EPA has historically applied in approving enforceable commitments. We will apply the relevant criteria for evaluating enforceable SIP commitments when we take action on a SIP that relies on a commitment to satisfy the control measure requirements of the Act.

    Comment 3.h: Earthjustice claims that the Rule 9610 definition of enforceable does not allow for independent verification or even the identification of liable sources. Earthjustice states that EPA identified several defects in the District's rule that would limit the disclosure of information necessary to verify compliance, such as “problems in [the] Annual Report” and “the District's mistaken interpretation of, and reference to, the Federal Food Security Act.” Based on these defects alone, the commenter claims that it is unclear why EPA is still proposing to approve the rule.

    Response 3.h: We continue to believe that the definition of “enforceable” in Rule 9610 generally allows for independent verification of emission reductions and identification of liable sources. As we explained in our proposed rule, Rule 9610 states that “emission reductions are enforceable if the incentive program includes provisions for ensuring the following: [1] The emission reductions are independently and practicably verifiable through inspections, monitoring, and/or other mechanisms; [2] Incentive program violations are defined through legally binding contracts, including identifying the party or parties responsible for ensuring that emission reductions are achieved; [3] Grantees are obligated to provide all records needed to demonstrate that emission reductions are achieved; and [4] The public has access to all emissions-related information for reductions claimed in the annual demonstration report, as outlined in Section 4.0 [of Rule 9610].” 79 FR 28650 at 28654 (citing Rule 9610, section 2.8). Additionally, Rule 9610 requires that each SIP in which the District relies on emission reductions achieved through incentive programs contain an “enforceable commitment” by the District to adopt and submit substitute measures to EPA by specified dates if there is a shortfall in required emission reductions for a particular year, among other things. See Rule 9610, section 7.4. Read together, these provisions of Rule 9610 obligate the District to include, with each SIP submittal that relies on incentive programs for necessary emission reductions, an enforceable commitment that enables EPA and citizens to obtain records adequate to independently confirm whether necessary emission reductions have occurred. Going forward, we intend to review each SIP commitment submitted by the District for compliance with these “enforceability” requirements in section 2.8 and the provisions concerning commitments in section 7.0 of Rule 9610, in addition to the applicable requirements of the Act.

    One significant exception to the general enforceability provisions in Rule 9610 is the provision in section 6.2 that categorically prohibits public disclosure of records related to NRCS's implementation of the EQIP program. As explained in our proposed rule (see 79 FR 28650 at 28657 and Proposal TSD at 9-10), section 6.2 of Rule 9610 does not accurately describe NRCS's statutory obligations with respect to disclosure of information concerning the EQIP program. Based on further evaluation of this provision and in response to Earthjustice's comments, we find that this provision necessitates a limited disapproval of Rule 9610 because, in addition to stating NRCS's statutory obligations incorrectly, the provision creates a potential conflict between the requirements of Rule 9610 and the requirements of the CAA concerning public availability of emission data. See CAA 114(c) and 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2); see also 2001 EIP Guidance at section 5.1d (“Procedures for public disclosure of information”). Therefore, EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 9610 on the basis of this deficiency in section 6.2 of the rule. This limited disapproval does not trigger any sanctions clocks under CAA section 179(a) because Rule 9610 was not submitted to address a requirement of part D, title I of the Act or in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (i.e., a “SIP Call”), but it does trigger an obligation on EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) to correct the deficiency, unless the State submits and EPA approves a corrective SIP revision within two years of the disapproval (see CAA section 110(c)(1)(B)). EPA expects the District to revise section 6.2 at its earliest opportunity to correct the errors in this provision and to ensure that the rule does not preclude disclosure of emission data related to the EQIP program.

    With respect to any future SIP submittal that relies on emission reductions achieved through EQIP to satisfy a CAA requirement, we expect that the annual reports certified by NRCS, as described in the March 2014 Addendum signed by NRCS, EPA, CARB and the District,14 will provide information that enables EPA and the public to verify the emissions of participating sources with an adequate level of accuracy and to determine whether the District has violated any SIP emission reduction commitment. See 79 FR 28650 at 28657 and Proposal TSD at 10-11. Additionally, in order for emission reductions achieved through EQIP to be enforceable under the CAA, the District will have to submit an enforceable SIP commitment to specifically describe the information obtained from NRCS in the relevant annual demonstration reports, to incorporate project-specific information obtained from NRCS in the electronic “Data Sheet” associated with each of these annual demonstration reports, and to make the NRCS's certified annual reports themselves available to the public upon request. See id. and Rule 9610, sections 6.1 and 7.0. EPA would not approve any SIP submittal that relies on emission reductions achieved through EQIP (or any other incentive program) if it does not provide for public availability of emission data consistent with CAA requirements. EPA will review each SIP submittal developed pursuant to Rule 9610 on a case-by-case basis, following notice-and-comment rulemaking, to determine whether the applicable requirements of the Act are met. We encourage the District to consult with us during its development of any SIP commitments under section 7.0 of Rule 9610 to ensure that these commitments will be legally and practically enforceable by EPA and citizens, in accordance with the requirements of the Act. See Response 3.i, below.

    14See “Addendum to the December 2010 Statement of Principles Regarding the Approach to State Implementation Plan Creditability of Agricultural Equipment Replacement Incentive Programs Implemented by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District” (“NRCS Addendum”).

    With respect to the 2013 Annual Demonstration Report, we provided suggestions for future reports in the Proposal TSD. See Proposal TSD at 52-55. We expect the District to consider these recommendations as it develops its annual demonstration reports for future years.

    Comment 3.i: Earthjustice argues that EPA's analysis ignores “the more fundamental defect which is that EPA and citizens can only rely on data submitted to, or collected by the District” and that this defect undermines any claim that the rule will ensure that citizens have access to all emissions-related information obtained from participating sources. According to Earthjustice, EPA has no authority to inspect sources for compliance with the contracts between the District and the source—i.e., EPA cannot collect its own information, conduct inspections, demand additional reporting, or enforce the failure to submit required reports. Earthjustice contends that EPA's ability to verify any of these emission reductions is limited because the emission reductions are secured through contracts that do not include EPA. Thus, Earthjustice claims, EPA “lacks the ability to independently verify compliance and instead must rely on the District and State to determine compliance.” For example, with respect to information regarding sources of EQIP funding, Earthjustice argues that because EPA and the public will not be provided with any information that can be independently verified or that identifies the participating sources, there is no way for EPA or the public to “verify compliance by `the source' as EPA's definition of enforceability requires” or to “even identify sources liable for violations.”

    Response 3.i: We disagree with the commenter's claim that EPA's definition of enforceability “requires” that EPA and the public have the ability to verify compliance by “the source.” The commenter cites two guidance documents (the 2001 EIP Guidance and 2004 Emerging and Voluntary Measures Guidance 15 ) to support its claim that, to be “enforceable,” an emission reduction measure must allow citizens to “file suits against sources for violations.” As explained above in Response 3.d, however, the CAA does not limit SIPs to those emission reduction techniques that citizens may directly enforce against emission sources, and EPA has indicated in a number of other guidance documents that provisions for EPA and citizen enforcement against a state or against some other “responsible party” (other than the source) may satisfy the Act's requirements for enforceability. See Response 3.d above.

    15 As explained in Response 3.d., the 2004 Emerging and Voluntary Measures Guidance recommends provisions authorizing citizen suits against sources for “emerging measures” but states that for “voluntary measures,” emission reductions and other required actions are enforceable if, among other things, “EPA maintains the ability to apply penalties and secure appropriate corrective action from the State where applicable and the State maintains the [ability to] secure appropriate corrective action with respect to portions of the program that are directly enforceable against the source. . . .” 2004 Emerging and Voluntary Measures Guidance at 3, 4 (emphases added).

    We continue to believe that Rule 9610 generally ensures that citizens will have access to all emissions-related information obtained by the District from sources participating in incentive programs, with one significant exception in section 6.2 of the rule. As we explained in the proposed rule, section 6.1 of Rule 9610 specifically requires the District to keep and maintain “[a]ll documents created and/or used in implementing the requirements of Section 4.0” of the rule and to make these documents available for public review consistent with the requirements of the California Public Records Act and related requirements. See 79 FR 28650 at 28657 (citing Rule 9610, section 6.1). Section 4.0 of Rule 9610, in turn, requires the District to annually prepare a public report that contains, among other things, identification of the amounts of “SIP-creditable emission reductions” from incentive programs that the District is relying on for SIP purposes; descriptions of the applicable incentive program guidelines; and detailed information about the individual projects relied upon to achieve the required emission reductions. See 79 FR 28650 at 28656 (citing Rule 9610, sections 4.0-4.6). Additionally, section 7.0 of the rule requires the District to make enforceable commitments that enable EPA and citizens to obtain records adequate to independently confirm whether necessary emission reductions have occurred. See Response 3.d and Response 3.h, above. Many of the incentive program guidelines identified in section 3.1 of Rule 9610 require that the District maintain specific documentation of pre-project and post-project inspections for each funded project and that all grantees submit detailed compliance-related documentation to the District on an annual or biennial basis. See, e.g., Proposal TSD at 15-16 (discussing provisions of Carl Moyer program guidelines) and 44-45 (discussing provisions of Prop 1B program guidelines). Provided the District commits to make these project records and other compliance-related documents available to the public upon request, consistent with the requirements of sections 6.1 and 7.0 of Rule 9610, EPA and citizens would have access to emissions-related information that the District obtains from participating sources.16

    16 Although EPA or citizen enforcement of a SIP commitment adopted in accordance with section 7.0 of Rule 9610 generally depends upon project-related information maintained by the District, this does not preclude independent verification of the emission reductions if the applicable incentive program guidelines require participating sources to regularly submit compliance-related documentation to the District and require the District to maintain these records for specified amounts of time. See, e.g., 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines at 3-31 and Proposal TSD at 15.

    Finally, we disagree with the commenter's claim that EPA lacks authority to collect information relevant to source compliance with the contracts issued by the District. Rule 9610 requires the District to maintain, with respect to all projects that the District relies upon for SIP emission reduction credit, reports submitted by grantees and records of all inspections and enforcement actions, among other things. See Rule 9610, section 6.1. Upon EPA's approval of a District commitment into the SIP, section 114(a) of the Act authorizes EPA to require information from “any person” who may have information necessary for the purpose of determining whether the District has violated such a SIP commitment—including all compliance-related documentation that the District maintains in accordance with the applicable incentive program guidelines. See CAA section 114(a) (authorizing the EPA to require submission of information from “any person” who may have information necessary for the purpose of determining whether a SIP requirement has been violated) and section 302(e) (defining “person” to include a State or political subdivision thereof). Additionally, both EPA and citizens may obtain compliance-related records from the District under the California Public Records Act. See Rule 9610, section 6.1. Thus, although EPA is not authorized to enforce the individual contracts between the District and the source, both EPA and citizens may collect information concerning source compliance from the District and, in some cases directly from participating sources,17 to the extent this information is necessary for the purpose of determining whether the District has violated a SIP commitment.

    17 For example, under certain Prop 1B program guidelines, each grantee must be subject to detailed contract provisions requiring the grantee to maintain certain documents for specified periods and/or submit these documents to the District on a regular basis. See, e.g., 2008 Prop 1B guidelines at Section III.D (“Local Agency Project Implementation Requirements”), Section IV (“General Equipment Project Requirements”), and Appendix A, Section C (“Recordkeeping Requirements”) and Section D (“Annual Reporting Requirements”); 2010 Prop 1B guidelines at Section IV.A (“Project Implementation Requirements”), Section VI (“General Equipment Project Requirements”), and Appendix A, Section F (“Recordkeeping Requirements”) and Section G (“Annual Reporting Requirements”).

    We expect an enforceable commitment that obligates the District to comply with adequate monitoring and recordkeeping requirements would ensure that emission reductions can be independently verified. In any case, EPA will review each submitted SIP commitment on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the commitment is legally and practically enforceable by EPA and citizens, in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

    Comment 3.j: Earthjustice argues that “[t]o the extent EPA wishes to allow credit for unenforceable emission reduction programs, it has a policy for doing so”—i.e., “[t]hese programs can be included with a cap on the credit they can receive.” Alternatively, Earthjustice contends, to the extent EPA wishes to treat these programs as enforceable SIP commitments, it also has a policy for reviewing and approving those, but the analysis of Rule 9610 is not consistent with those policies.

    Response 3.j: We disagree with the commenter's suggestions that emission reductions from voluntary incentive measures are entirely “unenforceable” under the CAA or subject to a specific “cap” on the credit allowed in a SIP. As explained above in Response 3.c, EPA has consistently stated in longstanding guidance that SIP credit may be allowed for a voluntary or other nontraditional measure only where the State takes responsibility for assuring that SIP emission reduction requirements are met through an enforceable commitment, which EPA and citizens may enforce upon EPA's approval of the commitment into the SIP. That is, emission reductions achieved by voluntary measures are enforceable under the Act where they are accompanied by such an enforceable commitment. In addition, the “cap” on SIP credit for voluntary measures that Earthjustice refers to is not a specific regulatory cap but a general policy recommendation. States and EPA may justify departing from these caps on a case-by-case basis, subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking on a particular SIP. See Response 3.c and EPA guidance documents referenced therein.

    In any case, we are not approving any State or District commitments in today's action and therefore do not have reason to evaluate this SIP submittal in accordance with EPA's policy criteria for approving enforceable commitments. As EPA stated in the proposed rule, EPA will review each SIP submittal developed pursuant to Rule 9610 on a case-by-case basis, following notice-and-comment rulemaking, to determine whether the applicable requirements of the Act are met. See 79 FR 28650 at 28654, 28658. We will apply the relevant criteria for evaluating SIP commitments when we take action on a SIP that contains such a commitment. Nothing in Rule 9610 supplants the applicable requirements of the Act, nor does anything in EPA's approval of Rule 9610 alter the requirements of the Act as they apply to SIPs that rely on emission reductions achieved through voluntary incentive programs.

    Comment 4: Earthjustice claims that the “best option for proceeding . . . would be to adopt backstop control measures that are fully SIP-creditable and use incentive programs to address cost-effectiveness concerns and incentivize early adoption and turnover.”

    Response 4: We continue to support the use of incentive programs to address cost-effectiveness concerns and to incentivize early adoption and turnover to cleaner, less-polluting mobile sources, and we encourage the commenter to provide these recommendations, together with any recommendations it may have concerning “backstop” control measures, to the State and/or District during their state and local rulemaking processes on air quality plans that rely on incentive programs for necessary emission reductions.

    Comment 5: Earthjustice claims that “Rule 9610 is a flawed attempt to make programs `SIP creditable' by fiat” and that this is not legitimate under the CAA. Earthjustice also asserts that “EPA's inconsistent analysis of the rule does not help in this effort.” In conclusion, Earthjustice asserts that if the desired goal is to promote the adoption of incentive programs, EPA, the State, and the District should go back to the drawing board and work with stakeholders to come up with a legally viable approach.”

    Response 5: For the reasons provided in Response 1 through Response 3 above, we disagree with Earthjustice's claims that Rule 9610 is a flawed attempt to make programs SIP creditable by fiat and that EPA has provided an inconsistent analysis of the rule. As previously explained, nothing in Rule 9610 supplants the applicable requirements of the Act, and EPA will review each SIP submittal developed pursuant to Rule 9610 on a case-by-case basis, following notice-and-comment rulemaking, to determine whether the applicable requirements of the Act are met. See 79 FR 28650 at 28654, 28658.

    We agree, however, with Earthjustice's suggestion that EPA, the State, the District and interested stakeholders should work together toward the development of air quality plans and measures that satisfy CAA requirements as applied to discretionary incentive programs and other nontraditional emission reduction measures. We look forward to the public's continued involvement, both during the State and local rulemaking processes through which the District and ARB adopt these plans and during the EPA rulemakings through which EPA takes final action on these plan submittals under section 110 of the CAA.

    Comment 6: The SJVUAPCD states that incentive funds to reduce mobile source emissions have become a critical component of the District's clean air strategy in the SJV and expresses appreciation for EPA's work with the District and with CARB, NRCS, and other stakeholders throughout the development of Rule 9610 and related documents. The District states that it supports EPA's proposal to fully approve Rule 9610 as a revision to the California SIP.

    Response 6: For the reasons provided in our proposed rule (79 FR 28650 at 28657) and further explained in Response 3.h, EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 9610. We look forward to the District's submittal of a revised rule that corrects the deficiencies we have identified in section 6.2 of the rule and addresses the recommendations provided in our proposed rule and Proposal TSD.

    EPA supports and encourages the continuing efforts by CARB, the District, and NRCS to make voluntary economic incentive programs an effective part of the SJV's strategy for clean air. We commit to continue our work with these agencies to develop reliable methods for documenting and verifying the emission reductions achieved through these programs and to ensure that future air quality plans for the SJV area that rely on economic incentives will satisfy the requirements of the Act.

    III. Final Action

    Under CAA sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act and for the reasons set forth above and in our May 19, 2014 proposed rule, EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 9610 as submitted June 26, 2013. We are finalizing a limited approval of the submitted rule because we continue to believe that the rule improves the SIP and is largely consistent with the applicable CAA requirements. This action incorporates the submitted rule, including those provisions identified as deficient, into the SJV portion of the federally-enforceable California SIP.

    We are finalizing a limited disapproval of Rule 9610 because section 6.2 of the rule incorrectly describes NRCS's statutory obligations with respect to disclosure of information concerning the EQIP program and creates a potential conflict with the requirements of the CAA concerning public availability of emission data. Our reasons for disapproving the rule on these bases are explained in the proposed rule and further in our responses to comments above.

    This limited disapproval does not trigger any sanctions clocks under CAA section 179(a) because Rule 9610 was not submitted to address a requirement of part D, title I of the Act or in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (i.e., a “SIP Call”). The limited disapproval does trigger an obligation on EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) to correct the deficiency, unless the State submits and EPA approves a corrective SIP revision within two years of the disapproval (see CAA section 110(c)(1)(B)). EPA expects the District to revise section 6.2 at its earliest opportunity to correct the errors in this provision and to ensure that the rule does not preclude disclosure of emission data related to the EQIP program.

    Note that the submitted rule has been adopted by the SJVUAPCD, and EPA's final limited disapproval does not prevent the local agency from enforcing it. The limited disapproval also does not prevent any portion of the rule from being incorporated by reference into the federally enforceable SIP as discussed in a July 9, 1992 EPA memo found at: http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ttnnsr01/gen/pdf/memo-s.pdf.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

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

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.

    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals and limited approvals/limited disapprovals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because this limited approval/limited disapproval action does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

    EPA has determined that the limited approval/limited disapproval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

    E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

    F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.

    K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. 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). This rule will be effective on May 11, 2015.

    L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 8, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: February 26, 2015. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(455) to read as follows:
    § 52.220 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    (455) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were submitted on June 26, 2013.

    (i) Incorporation by reference.

    (A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.

    (1) Rule 9610, “State Implementation Plan Credit for Emission Reductions Generated through Incentive Programs,” adopted on June 20, 2013.

    [FR Doc. 2015-07972 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 141222999-5322-02] RIN 0648-BE72 Fisheries off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Trawl Rationalization Program; Midwater Trawl Fishery Season Date Change AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action implements revisions to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Rationalization Program affecting the limited entry midwater trawl fisheries managed under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). This action revises the primary season-opening date for the Shorebased Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program midwater trawl fishery (targeting both whiting and non-whiting species) to May 15 north of 40°30′ N. lat. to the U.S./Canada border. This moves the season a month earlier for waters off the coasts of Washington and Oregon, and a month and half later for waters off the coast of northern California (north of 40°30′ N. lat.). This action increases consistency in the season start date along the coast and between the shorebased and at-sea midwater trawl fleets.

    DATES:

    Effective May 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    NMFS prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), which is summarized in the Classification section of this final rule. NMFS also prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for the proposed rule. Copies of the IRFA, FRFA and the Small Entity Compliance Guide are available from William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070; or by phone at 206-526-6150. Copies of the Small Entity Compliance Guide are available on the West Coast Region'sWeb site at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jamie Goen, 206-526-4656, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Since implementing the trawl rationalization program in 2011, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS have been working to implement additional regulatory changes to further improve the trawl rationalization program and respond to industry requests. Changing the midwater trawl fishery season date will further increase consistency in the season start date along the coast and between the shorebased and at-sea midwater trawl fleets. This action revises the primary season-opening date for the Shorebased IFQ Program midwater trawl fishery (targeting both whiting and non-whiting species) to May 15 north of 40°30′ N. lat. to the U.S./Canada border. This moves the season a month earlier for waters off the coasts of Washington and Oregon, and a month and half later for waters off the coast of northern California (north of 40°30′ N. lat.).

    NMFS published a proposed rule for this action on February 17, 2015 (80 FR 8280). The preamble to the proposed rule provided more background and information on the history of season date changes in the groundfish midwater trawl fisheries, as well as expected impacts. The preamble to the proposed rule also described the re-emerging midwater trawl fishery targeting groundfish species other than Pacific whiting (non-whiting midwater trawl). The season date change in this action applies to all midwater trawling in the Shorebased IFQ Program, whether targeting whiting or non-whiting groundfish species.

    Response to Comments

    The comment period on the proposed rule ended March 19, 2015. NMFS received one comment letter (with three separate comments) on the proposed rule from a fishing industry organization.

    Comment 1: The commenter stated industry support for the midwater season date change as proposed. It provides more flexibility for harvesters and processors to make their own business plans and taking in to consideration markets, weather, and participation in other fisheries. It also equalizes opportunity between whiting sectors (at-sea and shorebased) and simplifies regulations. The commenter urged the importance of this action being effective by May 15, 2015, to provide the expected benefits to industry this year.

    Response: NMFS agrees and is implementing the proposed change to be effective on May 15, 2015.

    Comment 2: The commenter noted that they did not expect increased impacts on prohibited species, such as salmon, because of this season date change. They also stated that both the at-sea and shorebased whiting fishery participants have actively taken steps to reduce their interactions with prohibited species, including voluntary actions through their harvesting cooperatives to share information and reduce salmon interactions.

    Response: NMFS agrees that there is not expected to be a significant impact to prohibited species, such as salmon, as a result of this action as explained further in the preamble to the proposed rule and in the associated environmental assessment. NMFS will continue to track prohibited and protected species bycatch in groundfish fisheries, including inseason monitoring of Chinook salmon bycatch. In an effort to further support industry's voluntary efforts to reduce bycatch, NMFS will provide the public with inseason estimates of Chinook bycatch in trawl fisheries. Inseason catch of Chinook salmon in at-sea fisheries is already publicly available in a report titled “NWR At-Sea Pacific Whiting Fishery Summary”, which can be found on the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Web site at http://pacfin.psmfc.org/pacfin_pub/data.php. In the spring of 2015, NMFS will also begin providing inseason estimates of Chinook bycatch in shorebased trawl fisheries on the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Web site. NMFS supports industry's voluntary efforts to track their bycatch, share information, and take appropriate actions to reduce bycatch.

    Comment 3: The commenter stated that, in addition to increased total allowable catches for widow and yellowtail rockfish (non-whiting species) in 2015 and 2016, the season date change will allow more opportunity for non-whiting midwater fishing, which should increase revenue in coastal communities and provide a greater net benefit to the nation.

    Response: NMFS supports efforts to build and maintain resilient and vibrant coastal communities while also balancing conservation of marine resources.

    Changes From the Proposed Rule

    There are no changes to the regulatory text from the proposed rule.

    Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this rule is consistent with the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, other provisions of the MSA, and other applicable law.

    The Council prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for this action and the NMFS Assistant Administrator concluded in a “Finding of No Significant Impact” that there will be no significant impact on the human environment as a result of this rule. The EA is available on the Council's Web site at http://www.pcouncil.org/ or on NMFS' Web site at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Fishery-Management/Trawl-Program/index.cfm.

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

    A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared and incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA). A summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, and NMFS' responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action are addressed below. NMFS also prepared a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for this action. A copy of the RIR/FRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the FRFA, per the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 604(a) follows:

    The SBA has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish harvesting and fish processing businesses. A business involved in fish harvesting is a small business if it is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates) and if it has combined annual receipts not in excess of $20.5 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. For marinas and charter/party boats, a small business is one with annual receipts not in excess of $7.5 million. For purposes of rulemaking, NMFS is also applying the $20.5 million standard to catcher/processors (C/Ps) because they are involved in the commercial harvest of finfish. A seafood processor is a small business if it is independently owned and operated, not dominant in its field of operation, and employs 500 or fewer persons on a full time, part time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations worldwide. A wholesale business servicing the fishing industry is a small business if it employs 100 or fewer persons on a full time, part time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations worldwide. A small organization is any nonprofit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. A small governmental jurisdiction is a government of a city, county, town, township, village, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000.

    This action revises the primary season opening date for the Shorebased IFQ Program midwater trawl fishery (targeting both whiting and non-whiting species) to May 15 north of 40°30′ N. lat. to the U.S./Canada border. This moves the season a month earlier for waters off the coasts of Washington and Oregon (from June 15 to May 15), and a month and half later for waters off the cost of northern California (north of 40°30′ N. lat.) (from April 1 to May 15), increasing consistency in the season start date along the coast and between the shorebased and at-sea midwater trawl fleets.

    NMFS did not receive any public comments directly related to the IRFA. One public comment did indicate that the change should result in greater revenue to the local fishing communities.

    This rule affects shorebased midwater trawlers in the trawl rationalization program and the processors that receive their product. During the 2011 to 2014 period, 30 midwater trawl vessels delivered to 10 shoreside processing plants in this fishery. Some vessels share common ownership, other vessels are owned by processing companies, and some companies own multiple processing plants. After accounting for these relationships, there are 26 entities that have participated in the fishery, 22 of which are small entities, based on NMFS' review of available information.

    There are no significant alternatives that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and that minimize the impact of the rule on small entities. Most entities affected by this rule are small entities (22 out of 26). An earlier shorebased season will increase the choices available for the Northern fishery (off Oregon and Washington), providing an opportunity to improve business decisions and potential profits from the fishery. For the Central Area fishery, there would be a contraction in flexibility to harvest from April 1 to May 15. Reducing the season in the Central fishery may have a chilling effect on the potential growth in the fishery. However, data for 2011 through 2014 shows that no midwater trawl gear harvest occurred in this area under the IFQ program.

    There are no new Federal reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with this action. There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.

    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a small entity compliance guide (the guide) was prepared. Copies of this final rule are available from the West Coast Regional Office, and the guide will be included in a public notice sent to all members of the groundfish email group. To sign-up for the groundfish email group, click on the “subscribe” link on the following Web site: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/fishery_management/groundfish/public_notices/recent_public_notices.html. The guide and this final rule will also be available on the West Coast Region's Web site (see ADDRESSES) and upon request.

    NMFS issued Biological Opinions under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on August 10, 1990, November 26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September 27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and December 15, 1999, pertaining to the effects of the Groundfish FMP fisheries on Chinook salmon (Puget Sound, Snake River spring/summer, Snake River fall, upper Columbia River spring, lower Columbia River, upper Willamette River, Sacramento River winter, Central Valley spring, California coastal), coho salmon (Central California coastal, southern Oregon/northern California coastal), chum salmon (Hood Canal summer, Columbia River), sockeye salmon (Snake River, Ozette Lake), and steelhead (upper, middle and lower Columbia River, Snake River Basin, upper Willamette River, central California coast, California Central Valley, south/central California, northern California, southern California). These biological opinions have concluded that implementation of the FMP is not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of NMFS, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

    NMFS issued a Supplemental Biological Opinion on March 11, 2006, concluding that neither the higher observed bycatch of Chinook in the 2005 whiting fishery nor new data regarding salmon bycatch in the groundfish bottom trawl fishery required a reconsideration of its prior “no jeopardy” conclusion. NMFS also reaffirmed its prior determination that implementation of the FMP is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of the affected ESUs. Lower Columbia River coho (70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) and Oregon Coastal coho (73 FR 7816, February 11, 2008) were relisted as threatened under the ESA. The 1999 biological opinion concluded that the bycatch of salmonids in the Pacific whiting fishery were almost entirely Chinook salmon, with little or no bycatch of coho, chum, sockeye, and steelhead.

    NMFS has reinitiated section 7 consultation on the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP with respect to its effects on listed salmonids. In the event the consultation identifies either reasonable and prudent alternatives to address jeopardy concerns, or reasonable and prudent measures to minimize incidental take, NMFS would coordinate with the Council to put additional alternatives or measures into place, as required. After reviewing the available information, NMFS has concluded that, consistent with sections 7(a)(2) and 7(d) of the ESA, this action will not jeopardize any listed species, would not adversely modify any designated critical habitat, and will not result in any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that would have the effect of foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative measures.

    On December 7, 2012, NMFS completed a biological opinion concluding that the groundfish fishery is not likely to jeopardize non-salmonid marine species, including listed eulachon, the southern distinct population segment (DPS) of green sturgeon, humpback whales, the eastern DPS of Steller sea lions, and leatherback sea turtles. The opinion also concluded that the fishery is not likely to adversely modify critical habitat for green sturgeon and leatherback sea turtles. An analysis included in the same document as the opinion concludes that the fishery is not likely to adversely affect green sea turtles, olive ridley sea turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, sei whales, North Pacific right whales, blue whales, fin whales, sperm whales, Southern Resident killer whales, Guadalupe fur seals, or the critical habitat for Steller sea lions. Since that biological opinion, the eastern DPS of Steller sea lions was delisted on November 4, 2013 (78 FR 66140); however, this delisting did not change the designated critical habitat for the eastern DPS of Steller sea lions. On January 21, 2013, NMFS informally consulted on the fishery's effects on eulachon to consider whether the 2012 opinion should be reconsidered for eulachon in light of new information from the 2011 fishery and the proposed chafing gear modifications. NMFS determined that information about bycatch of eulachon in 2011 and chafing gear regulations did not change the effects that were analyzed in the December 7, 2012, biological opinion, or provide any other basis to reinitiate consultation.

    On November 21, 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a biological opinion concluding that the groundfish fishery will not jeopardize the continued existence of the short-tailed albatross. The FWS also concurred that the fishery is not likely to adversely affect the marbled murrelet, California least tern, southern sea otter, bull trout, nor bull trout critical habitat.

    West Coast pot fisheries for sablefish are considered Category II fisheries under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), indicating occasional interactions. All other West Coast groundfish fisheries, including the trawl fishery, are considered Category III fisheries under the MMPA, indicating a remote likelihood of or no known serious injuries or mortalities to marine mammals. MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E) requires that NMFS authorize the taking of ESA-listed marine mammals incidental to U.S. commercial fisheries if it makes the requisite findings, including a finding that the incidental mortality and serious injury from commercial fisheries will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock. As noted above, NMFS concluded in its biological opinion for the 2012 groundfish fisheries that these fisheries were not likely to jeopardize Steller sea lions or humpback whales. The eastern distinct population segment of Steller sea lions was delisted under the ESA on November 4, 2013 (78 FR 66140). On September 4, 2013, based on its negligible impact determination dated August 28, 2013, NMFS issued a permit for a period of 3 years to authorize the incidental taking of humpback whales by the sablefish pot fishery (78 FR 54553).

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Fisheries, Fishing, and Indian fisheries.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Eileen Sobeck, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows:

    PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES 1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

    2. In § 660.131, revise paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(C) to read as follows:
    § 660.131 Pacific whiting fishery management measures.

    (b) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (iii) * * *

    (C) Shorebased IFQ Program. The start of the Shorebased IFQ Program primary whiting season is:

    (1) North of 40°30′ N. lat.—May 15;

    (2) South of 40°30′ N. lat.—April 15.

    [FR Doc. 2015-08194 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 68 Thursday, April 9, 2015 Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 721 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0649; FRL-9924-10] RIN 2070-AB27 Modification of Significant New Uses of Certain Chemical Substances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is proposing to amend the significant new use rules (SNURs) under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 24 chemical substances which were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). This action would amend the SNURs to allow certain uses without requiring a significant new use notice (SNUN), and would extend SNUN requirements to certain additional uses. EPA is proposing these amendments based on review of new data as described for each chemical substance. This action would requires persons who intend to manufacture (including import) or process any of these 24 chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this proposed rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0649, by one of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substances contained in this rule. 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:

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

    This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA. Importers of chemicals subject to a modified SNUR must certify their compliance with the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export the chemical substance that is the subject of a final rule are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see § 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

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

    EPA is proposing amendments to the SNURs for 24 chemical substances in 40 CFR part 721 subpart E. This proposed action would require persons who intend to manufacture or process these chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by these amended rules to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. Receipt of such notices allows EPA to assess risks that may be presented by the intended uses and, if appropriate, to regulate the proposed use before it occurs.

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

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors, listed in Unit III. of this document. Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture or process the chemical substance for that use. Persons who must report are described in § 721.5.

    C. Applicability of General Provisions

    General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. According to §  721.1(c), persons subject to these SNURs must comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA section 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA section 5(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA may take regulatory action under TSCA section 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7 to control the activities for which it has received the SNUN. If EPA does not take action, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to explain in the Federal Register its reasons for not taking action.

    III. Significant New Use Determination

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:

    • The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.

    • The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

    • The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

    • The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.

    In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2), the statute authorized EPA to consider any other relevant factors.

    To determine what would constitute a significant new use for the 24 chemical substances that are the subject of these SNURs, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substance, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, taking into consideration the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit.

    IV. Substances Subject to a Proposed Significant New Use Rule Amendment

    EPA is proposing to amend the significant new use and recordkeeping requirements for 24 chemical substances in 40 CFR part 721 Subpart E. In this unit, EPA provides the following information for each chemical substance:

    • PMN number and SNUN number.

    • Chemical name (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as CBI).

    • Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number (if assigned for non-confidential chemical identities).

    Federal Register publication date and reference for the final SNUR previously issued.

    • Basis for the Proposed Amendment.

    • Tests recommended by EPA to provide sufficient information to evaluate the chemical substance (see Unit VII. for more information).

    • CFR citation assigned in the regulatory text section of this rule.

    PMN Number P-99-669, SNUN Number S-09-1, and SNUN Number S-13-29

    Chemical name: Oxirane, methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono (3,5,5,-trimethylhexyl) ether.

    CAS number: 204336-40-3.

    Federal Register publication date and reference: March 28, 2003 (68 FR 15061) (FRL-6758-7).

    Basis for the modified significant new use rule: The generic (non-confidential) use of the chemical substance for the PMN and the SNUN is as a wetting agent. The original SNUR was issued based on meeting the concern criteria at § 721.170 (b)(4)(ii). The original SNUR required notification if the chemical substance was used for uses other than as described in the PMN. On November 12, 2008 EPA received a SNUN, S-09-1, and on June 4, 2013 EPA received a SNUN, S-13-29 for the chemical substance describing uses different than those in the PMN. The 90-day review period for the SNUNs expired with EPA not taking action on the significant new uses described in the SNUNs. Based on structural analogy to nonionic surfactants, EPA is still concerned that toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at a concentration of 600 parts per billion (ppb) in surface waters. Because EPA finds that the substance is not released to surface waters in significant quantities as described in either the PMN or the SNUNs, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, and use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that other uses of the substance may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this the substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170 (b)(4)(ii). Based on these findings, EPA is proposing to modify the SNUR to allow the uses described in S-09-01 and S-13-29.

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1075); an aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity text, freshwater daphnids (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1010); and an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) would help characterize the environmental effects of the chemical substance.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.522.

    PMN Number P-00-618 and SNUN Numbers S-05-03 and S-11-4

    Chemical name: 1-Butanol, 3-methoxy-3-methyl-, acetate.

    CAS number: 103429-90-9.

    Federal Register publication date and reference: March 28, 2003 (68 FR 15061) (FRL-6758-7).

    Basis for the modified significant new use rule: The generic (non-confidential) use of the chemical substance for the PMN is as a processing aid. The uses of the chemical substance for the SNUNs are as an organic solvent of polyurethane plastic coating, an ingredient in various kinds of paint thinner, an organic solvent of polyurethane resin, an ingredient of cleaning agents, an organic solvent for screen ink, an ingredient in airplane paint, and a solvent for inkjet printer ink. EPA identified concerns for liver toxicity, kidney toxicity, developmental neurotoxicity and carcinogenicity based on analog data. The original SNUR was issued based on meeting the concern criteria at § 721.170 (b)(3)(i), (b)(3)(ii), and (b)(1)(i)(C). The original SNUR required notification if the chemical substance was used for use other than as described in the PMN. On March 23, 2005, EPA received a SNUN, S-05-3, for the chemical substance describing uses different than those in the PMN. Based on the activities described in this SNUN, a TSCA section 5(e) consent order was issued for the SNUN submitter under sections 5(e)(1)(A)(i) and (e)(1)(A)(ii)(I) based on a finding that the substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health. On October 26, 2010, EPA received a SNUN, S-11-4, for a new use, which was as a solvent for inkjet printer ink. The SNUN submitter also submitted a chromosome aberration study, a mouse lymphoma assay and a combined repeated dose study with reproductive and developmental toxicity. Based on the test data for the chemical substance which was submitted with S-11-4, EPA continues to have concerns for liver toxicity and kidney toxicity for exposed workers and consumers. In response to S-11-4, EPA allowed the new use and modified the consent order accordingly, while continuing to protect against any unreasonable risks of injury to human health. The modified consent order requires:

    1. Workers to use personal protective equipment to prevent dermal exposure.

    2. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health, environmental hazard precautionary statements on each label and the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).

    3. Not manufacture the substance in the United States.

    4. Not use the substance in consumer products.

    5. Limit the percent concentration of the substance to 10% or less in final products whose use involves an application method that generates a vapor, mist, or aerosol, except for commercial/professional inkjet printing in a commercial (excluding retail) print shop.

    The proposed SNUR designates as a significant new use the absence of these protective measures when using the substance for any use other than as described in the PMN.

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a two-year chronic toxicity study (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.4100) via the dermal and inhalation routes would help characterize the health effects of the PMN substance.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.532.

    PMN Number P-98-1275 and SNUN Number S-11-10

    Chemical name: Aluminosilicates, phospho-.

    CAS number: 201167-69-3.

    Federal Register publication date and reference: December 26, 2000 (65 FR 81386) (FRL-6592-8).

    Basis for the modified significant new use rule: The generic (non-confidential) use of the chemical substance for the PMN and the SNUN is as a catalyst. A consent order was issued for the PMN under section 5(e)(1)(A)(i) and section 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I) of TSCA based on a finding that the substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health. The original SNUR, based on the requirements in the TSCA section 5(e) consent order, required notification if the PMN substance was used without the respiratory protection described in the SNUR (i.e., a National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) respirator with an Assigned Protection Factor (APF) of 2000), the hazard communication program described in the SNUR was not used, or the aggregate production volume in the consent order was exceeded. Upon receipt and evaluation of the 90-day inhalation study required in the consent order, EPA continues to find that the substance may present an unreasonable risk of lung effects and cancer, although at a higher dose/effect level. Based on this finding, EPA modified the consent order to remove the production volume limit and reduce the required protection level for the respirator to an APF of 50. On June 14, 2011, EPA received a SNUN, S-11-10, for the chemical substance to use a respirator with an APF of 50 and to exceed the production volume limit. EPA permitted the new uses for the same reasons it modified the consent order. The proposed SNUR designates as a “significant new use” the absence of the respiratory protection and hazard communication measures in the modified consent order.

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a two-year two-species oral carcinogenicity study (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.4200) would help characterize the health effects of the PMN substance.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.633.

    PMN Number P-00-7 and SNUN Numbers S-05-1, S-06-4, S-07-3, and S-07-5

    Chemical name: D-Glucuronic acid, polymer with 6-deoxy-L-mannose and D-glucose, acetate, calcium magnesium potassium sodium salt.

    CAS number: 125005-87-0.

    Federal Register publication date and reference: December 17, 2003 (68 FR 70155) (FRL-7307-3).

    Basis for the modified significant new use rule: The uses of the chemical substance as described in the PMN are as an oilfield drilling fluid, an oilfield spacer fluid, in oilfield cementing, in cementitious packaged products, in concrete applications, and in foam applications. Based on structural analogues and submitted test data, EPA identified concerns for lung effects from inhalation exposure to the chemical substance. The original SNUR was issued based on meeting the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii). The original SNUR required notification if the chemical substance was used for any use other than those described in PMN. EPA received SNUN S-05-1 on December 1, 2004, S-06-4 on February 28, 2006, S-07-3 on June 5, 2007, and S-07-5 on July 17, 2007. Each SNUN described different uses for the chemical substance than those described in the PMN: S-05-1 described use as a sealant, S-06-4 described a generic use in pipeline transmission systems, S-07-3 described any uses other than those already allowed in the SNUR where less than 5 percent of the chemical substance consists of particles below 10 microns, and S-07-05 described a generic use in a commercial dry wash additive. As with the PMN, the Agency in its review of the SNUNs found that significant inhalation exposure remains unlikely when used as described in the SNUNs, and accordingly, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, and use of the chemical substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that use of the chemical substance where more than 5 percent of the chemical substance contains particles below 10 microns may cause significant health effects. Based on this information, the chemical substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii). Based on these findings EPA is proposing to modify the SNUR to remove the notification requirement for specific end uses and instead require notification where more than 5 percent of the chemical substance consists of particles below 10 microns.

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the 90-day inhalation toxicity study with a 60-day holding period (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.3465) would help to characterize the human health effects of the PMN substance. Attention should be given to the lungs, including histopathology of the lungs (inflammation, epithelial hyperplasia, and fibrosis), (HAL) analysis for markers of lung injury, and lung burden analysis for clearance of the test material (EPA-748-R-96-001). The neurotoxicity components and examination of organs other than the lungs are not required in the 90-day study.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.2076.

    PMN Number P-95-169 and SNUN Numbers S-08-7 and S-14-1

    Chemical name: 2-Propen-1-one, 1-(4-morpholinyl)-.

    CAS number: 5117-12-4.

    Federal Register publication date and reference: Jan. 5, 2000 (65 FR 354) (FRL-6055-2), amended May 13, 2011 (76 FR 27910) (FRL-8871-5).

    Basis for the modified significant new use rule: The use for P-95-169 is as a diluent for ultraviolet and electron beam curable resins for coatings, inks, and curable adhesives, and the use for S-14-1 is as a monomer for use in ultraviolet ink jet applications. The generic (non-confidential) use for S-08-7 is a contained use in energy production. A consent order for the PMN was issued under sections 5(e)(1)(A)(i) and 5(e)(l)(A)(ii)(I) of TSCA based on a finding that the chemical substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment. To protect against these risks, the Agency issued a TSCA section 5(e) consent order which became effective on November 27, 1998. The order required the use of dermal personal protective equipment (including gloves demonstrated to be impervious) and respiratory personal protective equipment (including a NIOSH-approved respirator); required establishment of a hazard communication program; prohibited domestic manufacturing; prohibited processing and use activities in non-enclosed processes; established maximum production volume limits for submission of required testing; established waste disposal practices (including restrictions for no release to surface waters and requirement of disposal only in a Resource Conservation Recovery Act ((RCRA) hazardous waste landfill); and prohibited use of the chemical substance involving an application method that generates a vapor, mist, or aerosol.

    A SNUR was issued for this chemical substance on January 5, 2000. The SNUR designated as a “significant new use” the absence of the protective measures required in the consent order.

    Subsequent to issuance of the SNUR, the PMN submitter completed the following studies under the terms of the TSCA section 5(e) consent order: An in vivo mouse micronucleus test, a 90-day oral toxicity study in rats, and a reproductive toxicity screening study in rats. The results of the micronucleus test were negative. Based on the results of the 90-day study, the Agency established a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 20 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) for neurotoxicity. Further, based on the results of the reproductive toxicity screening study, a NOAEL of 75 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested) was established for reproductive effects. From these data, the Agency calculated Margins of Exposure (MOEs) for predicted workplace exposures.

    Based on these new data, concerns remained for possible effects to the liver, testes, kidney, and blood from dermal exposure. However, EPA no longer had substantial human health concerns for mutagenicity and neurotoxicity. In addition, Agency concerns for carcinogenicity by inhalation were reduced, but were further mitigated by retaining the original consent order prohibition of industrial processing and use in a non-enclosed process and any use application methods that generate a vapor, mist, or aerosol form of the PMN substance.

    In addition, to account for data received on analogous substances since the initial PMN was submitted and to address Agency environmental concerns, a re-review of the environmental toxicity profile for the chemical substance was conducted. The results of this evaluation indicated a low concern for chronic aquatic toxicity. Therefore, EPA could no longer make a “may present unreasonable risk” finding for releases of the PMN substance to surface waters. As a result of this review, EPA issued a modified TSCA section 5(e) consent order which became effective on May 9, 2006. The modified order removed requirements for respiratory protection, waived further required trigger testing, removed the restriction on domestic manufacture, and removed waste disposal restrictions. Pursuant to § 721.185(a)(5), the Agency examined new information and reexamined the test data and other information supporting its finding under section 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I) of TSCA, and concluded that a rational basis no longer existed to support findings that certain activities involving the substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment required under section 5(e)(1)(A) of TSCA.

    To protect against the remaining potential risks, the modified consent order:

    • Requires the use of dermal personal protective equipment (including gloves demonstrated to be impervious).

    • Requires establishment of a hazard communication program.

    • Prohibits processing and use activities in non-enclosed processes.

    • Prohibits the use of the chemical substance involving an application method that generates a vapor, mist, or aerosol.

    On June 27, 2008, the Agency received a SNUN, S-08-7, for the subject chemical substance. The significant new use identified in the notice was release to water for the generic (non-confidential) use of “contained use in energy production”. The 90-day review period for the SNUN expired on October 2, 2008 with EPA not taking action on the “significant new use” of release of the substance to water.

    On May 13, 2011, EPA issued a modified SNUR based on and consistent with the provisions in the underlying modified consent order which no longer included release to water as a significant new use. In addition, EPA included, in the regulatory text, clarifying language for those forms of the PMN substance which are exempt from the provisions of the proposed SNUR. The SNUR does not apply to quantities of the PMN substance after it has been completely reacted (cured) because the PMN substance will no longer exist.

    On October 21, 2013, EPA received a second SNUN, S-14-1, for the subject chemical substance. The significant new use identified in the notice was processing and use in a non-enclosed process as a monomer for use in ultraviolet ink jet applications. The 90-day review period for the SNUN expired on March 13, 2014, with EPA not taking action on the significant new use of processing and use in a non-enclosed process as a monomer for use in ultraviolet ink jet applications. When evaluating this new use, EPA also evaluated potential environmental releases. Based on a new review of test data on the chemical substance, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 100 ppb of the chemical substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN and SNUNs, releases of the substance are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 100 ppb. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substance resulting in surface waters concentrations exceeding 100 ppb may result in significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the chemical substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170 (b)(4)(i). The proposed SNUR designates as a “significant new use” the absence of the protective measures required in the modified consent order, any water releases during manufacturing, processing, and use that exceed 100 ppb, or use other than as a monomer for use in ultraviolet ink jet applications unless the chemical substance is processed and used in an enclosed process.

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of the combined repeated dose toxicity with the reproductive/developmental toxicity screening test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.3650) would help further characterize the human health effects of the PMN substance. The modified TSCA section 5(e) consent order does not require submission of the aforementioned information at any specified time or production volume. However, the order's restrictions on manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, use and disposal of the chemical substance will remain in effect until the order is modified or revoked by EPA based on submission of that or other relevant information.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.5185.

    PMN Numbers P-88-2179 and P-89-0539 and SNUN Number S-08-3

    Chemical name: Oxirane, 2,2′-(1,6-hexanediylbis(oxymethylene))bis-.

    CAS number: 16096-31-4.

    Federal Register publication date and reference: April 25, 1991 (56 FR 19228).

    Basis for the modified significant new use rule: The generic (non-confidential) use of the chemical substance in the PMNs and the SNUN is in coatings and as a diluent. A consent order was issued under sections 5(e)(1)(A)(i) and 5(e)(l)(A)(ii)(I) of TSCA based on a finding that the chemical substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment. To protect against these risks, the Agency issued a TSCA section 5(e) consent order which became effective on October 12, 1990. The order required the use of dermal personal protective equipment including impervious gloves and respiratory personal protective equipment including a NIOSH-approved respirator; required establishment of a hazard communication program; prohibited non-industrial use; established maximum production volume limits for submission of required testing; established requirements for release to surface waters during manufacturing and allowed no release to surface waters during processing and use. On February 4, 2008, EPA received a SNUN, S-08-3, for the chemical substance. The significant new use identified in the notice was a non-industrial use. The 90-day review period for the SNUN expired on October 2, 2008, with EPA not taking action on the “significant new use” of the industrial use described in the SNUN. The proposed SNUR designates as a “significant new use” any non-industrial use other than as described in the SNUN and retains the other significant new uses which are the absence of the other protective measures required in the consent order.

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a 90-day oral subchronic study with special attention given to the pathology of the reproductive organs (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.3100), a two-year two-species oral carcinogenicity study (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.4200), a fish acute toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1075), an aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity text (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1010) and an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) would help further characterize the human health and environmental effects of the PMN substance. The consent order requires the PMN submitter to conduct the 90-day oral toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.3100) before exceeding the confidential production limit in the consent order.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.5575.

    PMN Number P-95-638 and SNUN Numbers P-97-79 and S-06-8

    Chemical name: Pentane 1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,5,-decafluoro.

    CAS number: 138495-42-8.

    Federal Register publication date and reference: January 22, 1998 (63 FR 3394) (FRL-5720-3).

    Basis for the modified significant new use rule: The generic (non-confidential) use of the chemical substance for the PMN is as a carrier fluid and for the two SNUNs the generic (non-confidential) use is as test media. The original SNUR was issued based on meeting the concern criteria at § 721.170 (b)(4)(i). The original SNUR required notification if the chemical substance was used for uses other than described in the PMN or the first SNUN P-97-79 (at that time SNUNs were designated with a “P” number; later submissions received an “S” designation). On February 4, 2008, EPA received a second SNUN, S-06-8, for the subject chemical substance. The significant new use identified in S-06-8 was the specific confidential use described in the notice. The 90-day review period for the SNUN expired on July 17, 2006, with EPA not taking action on the significant new use described in the SNUN. The proposed SNUR designates as a significant new use, any use other than the uses described in the PMN and the SNUNs.

    Recommended testing: None.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.5645.

    PMN Number P-00-1220 and SNUN Number S-07-2

    Chemical name: Phenol-biphenyl polymer condensate (generic).

    CAS number: Claimed confidential.

    Federal Register publication date and reference: August 20, 1998 (63 FR 44562) (FRL-5788-7).

    Basis for the modified significant new use rule: The use of the chemical substance for the PMN is in electric molding and for the SNUN is as a component in photoresist manufacture. The original SNUR was issued based on meeting the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii). The original SNUR required notification if the PMN substance was released to water. On January 8, 2007, EPA received SNUN, S-07-2, for the chemical substance describing releases to water. The 90-day review period for the SNUN expired with the Agency not taking action on the significant new uses described in the SNUN because the water releases did not exceed 1 ppb, the Agency's surface water concentration of concern for adverse effects of the substance to aquatic organisms. The PMN submitter subsequently submitted a fish early-life stage ecotoxicity study for the chemical substance. Based on this submitted study and structural analogy to phenols, EPA is still concerned that toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at a concentration of 5 ppb in surface waters. Because EPA finds that the chemical substance is not released to surface waters above 5 ppb as described in the PMN and SNUN, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, and use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that other uses of the substance may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this the substance meets the concern criteria at § 721(b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii). Based on these findings, EPA is proposing to modify the SNUR to require notification if water releases exceed 5 ppb in surface waters.

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that an aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity text (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1010) and an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) would help further characterize the environmental effects of the chemical substance.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.5713.

    PMN Number P-01-320 and SNUN Numbers S-04-2 and S-11-1

    Chemical name: Propane,1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-methoxy-.

    CAS number: 375-03-1.

    Federal Register publication date and reference: December 17, 2003 (68 FR 70155) (FRL-7307-3).

    Basis for the modified significant new use rule: The use of the chemical substance for the PMN is as a heat transfer fluid and a refrigerant. The use for S-04-2 is for aerosol spray cleaning. The use for S-11-1 is for flush cleaning, foam blowing, deposition coatings, histology baths, and vapor degreasing. The original SNUR was issued based on meeting the concern criteria at § 721.170 (b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii). The original SNUR required notification if the chemical substance was used other than as a heat transfer fluid or refrigerant, or if the annual production volume exceeded 100,000 kilograms. On March 29, 2004, EPA received SNUN, S-04-2, for the chemical substance describing a new use of aerosol spray cleaning for industrial and commercial use. The 90-day review period for the SNUN expired on June 26, 2004 with EPA not taking action on the significant new use of aerosol spray cleaning for industrial and commercial use. On January 4, 2011, EPA received a SNUN, S-11-1, for the chemical substance describing new uses of flush cleaning, foam blowing, deposition coatings, histology baths, and vapor degreasing and exceeding an annual production volume of 100,000 kilograms. The 90-day review period for S-11-1 expired on September 23, 2011 with EPA not taking action on the significant new uses described in the SNUN. EPA continues to identify health concerns for liver and kidney toxicity based on submitted test data on the chemical substance and cardiac sensitization and developmental toxicity based on analog data. For the uses described in the PMN and SNUNs, significant occupational exposure is not expected. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use will present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any uses of the substance other than those described in the PMN and SNUNs may result in serious health effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170 (b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii). The proposed SNUR modification designates as a “significant new use” any use other than the uses described in the PMN and SNUNs. The proposed SNUR modification no longer designates the significant new use of exceeding an annual production volume of 100,000 kilograms.

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a 90-day oral subchronic study (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.3100) would help to characterize the human health effects of the PMN substance.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.8145.

    PMN Number P-01-781

    Chemical name: Silane, triethoxy[3-oxiranylmethoxy)propyl]-.

    CAS number: 2602-34-8.

    Federal Register publication date and reference: Dec. 17, 2003 (68 FR 70155) (FRL-7307-3).

    Basis for the modified significant new use rule: The original SNUR was issued resulting in listing the incorrect CAS number as 2602-34-2 for the chemical substance in the Code of Federal Regulations. The proposed SNUR modification is designating the correct CAS number of 2602-34-8. The original findings and requirements of the SNUR are the same.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.9501.

    PMN Number P-00-1132 and SNUN Number S-11-5

    Chemical name: Siloxanes and silicones, aminoalkyl, fluorooctyl, hydroxy-terminated salt (generic).

    CAS number: Claimed confidential.

    Federal Register publication date and reference: March 28, 2003 (68 FR 15061) (FRL-6758-7).

    Basis for the modified significant new use rule: The use of the chemical substance for the PMN is in anti-graffiti systems and for the SNUN is as a surface treatment and additive for coatings, adhesives, sealants, paste, insulation and textiles for porous, non-porous, ceramic, metal, glass, plastic, wood and leather surfaces; and a surface treatment agent for inorganic filler particles. The original SNUR was issued based on meeting the concern criteria at § 721.170 (b)(3)(ii). The original SNUR required notification if the chemical substance was used for use other than described in PMN or for an application that generates a vapor, mist, or aerosol. On January 5, 2011, EPA received a SNUN, S-11-5, for the chemical substance describing uses different than those in the PMN. EPA also reviewed a 90-day inhalation study that was submitted for the substance in the SNUN. The results of the study demonstrated a Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) of 30 milligram/cubic meter (mg/m3) for lung effects. The 90-day review period for the SNUN expired with the Agency not taking action on the significant new uses described in the SNUN. Since EPA continues to find that significant worker exposure is unlikely when used as described in the PMN and SNUN, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, and use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that other uses of the substance or applications that generate a vapor, mist, or aerosol could result in exposures which may cause serious health effects. Based on this information the substance meets the concern criteria at § 721(b)(3)(ii). Based on these findings, EPA is proposing to modify the SNUR to require notification for any uses other than described in the PMN and the SNUN.

    Recommended Testing: EPA has determined that the results of a decomposition kinetics by thermo gravimeter (ASTM Test Guideline E1641), a compositional analysis by thermo gravimeter (ASTM Test Guideline E1131), and a laboratory burn test by a protocol to be agreed upon by EPA and the company conducting the study, would help to further characterize the environmental fate of the PMN substance.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.9502.

    PMN Numbers P-97-296, P-97-297, P-97-298, and P-97-299 and SNUN Numbers S-03-10, S-03-11, S-03-12, and S-03-13

    Chemical name: Benzenesulfonic acid, mono C-10-16 -alkyl derivs., compds. with 2-propen-1-amine (PMN P-97-296 and SNUN S-03-10) and Alkyl benzene sulfonic acids and alkyl sulfates, amine salts (PMN P-97-297/298/299 and SNUN S-03-11/12/13).

    CAS number: 195008-77-6 (PMN P-97-296 and SNUN S-03-10) and

    Claimed confidential (PMN P-97-297/298/299 and SNUN S-03-11/12/13).

    Federal Register publication date and reference: August 20, 1998 (63 FR 44562) (FRL-5788-7).

    Basis for the modified significant new use rule: The generic (non-confidential) use of the chemical substances for the PMNs and the SNUNs is as a processing aid. The original SNUR was issued based on meeting the concern criteria at § 721.170 (b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii). The original SNUR required notification if the PMN substances were released to water. On March 4, 2003, EPA received SNUNs S-03-10, S-03-11, S-03-12, and S-03-13 for the chemical substances describing releases to water. The 90-day review period for the SNUNs expired with EPA not taking action on the significant new uses described in the SNUNs because the water releases did not exceed 30 ppb. Based on submitted data and structural analogy to anionic surfactants, EPA is still concerned that toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at a concentration of 30 ppb in surface waters. Because EPA finds that the substances are not released to surface waters above 30 ppb as described in the PMN and SNUN, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, and use of the substances may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that other uses of the substances may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this the substances meet the concern criteria at § 721.170 (b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii). Based on these findings EPA is proposing to modify the SNUR to require notification if water releases exceed 30 ppb in surface waters.

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that a fish acute toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1075), an aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity text (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1010) and an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) would help further characterize the human health and environmental effects of the PMN substance.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.9595.

    PMN Number P-90-226 and SNUN Numbers P-96-1408, S-08-6, S-09-4, and S-13-49

    Chemical name: Titanate [Ti6O13 (2-)], dipotassium.

    CAS number: 12056-51-8.

    Federal Register publication date and reference: August 13, 1991 (56 FR 40204).

    Basis for the modified significant new use rule: The generic use of the chemical substance is as a friction material. A consent order was issued under sections 5(e)(1)(A)(i) and 5(e)(l)(A)(ii)(I) of TSCA based on a finding that the chemical substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health. To protect against these risks, EPA issued a TSCA section 5(e) consent order which became effective on February 21, 1991. The order required the establishment of a hazard communication program; prohibited domestic manufacturing; prohibited non-industrial use; established maximum production volume limits for submission of required testing; prohibited manufacture other than by the manufacturing method in P-90-226; and required the bulk density measurements of the PMN substance in the pure form to be less than 0.4 gram/cubic centimeter (g/cm3). A SNUR was issued for this chemical substance on August 13, 1991. The SNUR designated as a “significant new use” the absence of the protective measures required in the consent order. On July 15, 1996, EPA received a SNUN, P-96-1408 (at that time SNUNs were designated with a “P” number; later submissions received an “S” designation); on June 23, 2008, EPA received S-08-6; on March 30, 2009, EPA received S-09-4; and on July 17, 2013, EPA received S-13-49 for the chemical substance. The significant new use for each SNUN was a manufacturing method other than described in P-90-226. EPA took no action during the 90-day review periods for the SNUNs and allowed the significant new uses because EPA determined that none of the manufacturing processes produced respirable acicular fibers with an average aspect ratio of less than 5, and as a result were not considered by EPA to pose an unreasonable risk of lung toxicity to workers. In addition, a 90-day inhalation study was submitted by the PMN submitter under the terms of the TSCA section 5(e) consent order and an intratracheal instillation study submitted by the submitter of S-09-4 demonstrated no evidence of fibrosis in test animals. The proposed SNUR modification designates as a significant new use any domestic manufacture, non-industrial use, any manufacturing process other than described in the PMN and the SNUNs, and any manufacture that produces respirable, acicular fibers with an average aspect ratio greater than 5. The proposed SNUR modification no longer designates establishment of a hazard communication program or exceeding an aggregate production volume limit as a significant new use.

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a 90-day inhalation toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.3465) and a carcinogenicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.4200) via the inhalation route would help characterize the potential human health effects of the chemical substance from alternate methods of manufacture.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.9675.

    PMN Number P-93-1649 and SNUN Numbers S-04-3 and S-11-3

    Chemical name: 1,3-Dimethyl-2-imidazolidinone.

    CAS number: 80-73-9.

    Federal Register publication date and reference: August 30, 1995 (60 FR 45072) (FRL-4926-2).

    Basis for the modified significant new use rule: The generic (non-confidential) use of the chemical substance for the PMN is as a process raw material and for the SNUNs is as a printing ink ingredient. The consent order was issued under sections 5(e)(1)(A)(i) and 5(e)(l)(A)(ii)(I) of TSCA based on a finding that the chemical substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health. To protect against these risks, EPA issued a TSCA section 5(e) consent order which became effective on August 25, 1994. The order required the use of dermal personal protective equipment (including gloves demonstrated to be impervious) and required establishment of a hazard communication program; prohibited domestic manufacture; prohibited non-industrial uses; and established maximum production volume limits for submission of required testing. The SNUR issued for this chemical substance on August 30, 1995, designated as a significant new use the absence of the protective measures required in the consent order. On August 16, 2004, EPA received S-04-3 and on October 21, 2010, EPA received S-11-3 for the chemical substance. The significant new use for both SNUNs was a non-industrial use. The 90-day review period for both SNUNs expired with the Agency not taking action on the significant new uses described in the SNUNs. The PMN submitter conducted a dermal developmental toxicity study and a 90-day dermal subchronic study on the PMN substance. The results of the developmental study was a maternal chronic toxicity NOAEL of 10 mg/kg/day and a development toxicity NOAEL of 100 mg/kg/day. The results of the 90-day dermal study was a NOAEL of 500 mg/kg/day. Because EPA continues to find that dermal exposures may cause an unreasonable risk of human health effects, EPA is proposing to modify the SNUR to allow the commercial use (specific use claimed confidential) as described in the SNUNs but is retaining all other significant new uses and requirements in the SNUR.

    Recommended testing: None.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.9892.

    PMN Number P-00-1121

    Chemical name: Manganese strontium oxide (MnSrO3).

    CAS number: 12163-45-0.

    Federal Register publication date and reference: March 29, 2007 (72 FR 14681) (FRL-7699-5).

    Basis for the modified significant new use rule: The generic (non-confidential) use of the chemical substance is as a pigment. A consent order was issued under sections 5(e)(1)(A)(i) and 5(e)(l)(A)(ii)(I) of TSCA based on a finding that the chemical substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment. To protect against these risks, the order required establishment of a hazard communication program; established maximum aggregate volume limits for submission of required testing; limited release to surface waters; and prohibited manufacture, process, or use of the PMN substance if the particle size is less than 10 microns. EPA received a 96-hour toxicity test with rainbow trout for the chemical substance. No mortality was observed at concentrations up to the highest concentration tested of 16,000 milligram/Liter (mg/L). Based on these test results, EPA modified the consent order to remove the aggregate volume limit and the surface water release limits. The modified consent order retains the hazard communication requirements and the particle size limitations to continue to prevent any unreasonable risk of injury to human health. The proposed SNUR modification designates as a significant new use the absence of the protective measures in the modified consent order.

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that a 90-day inhalation toxicity study with a 60-day holding period (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.3465) and a two-year inhalation carcinogenicity study (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.4200) would help to characterize the human health effects of the PMN substance.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10008.

    PMN Number P-07-601 and SNUN Number S-14-11

    Chemical name: 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-.

    CAS number: 754-12-1.

    Federal Register publication date and reference: October 27, 2010 (75 FR 65987) (FRL-8846-8) and November 1, 2013 (78 FR 65570) (FRL-9901-97).

    Basis for modification of the SNUR: The use of the chemical substance for the PMN was as a refrigerant in motor vehicle air conditioning systems in new passenger cars and vehicles and the use for the SNUN was as a refrigerant for stationary refrigeration and stationary air conditioning. The original SNUR was issued based on meeting the concern criteria at § 721.170. The original SNUR required notification if the chemical substance was used for uses other than as described in the PMN. On May 12, 2014 EPA received a SNUN, S-14-11, for the chemical substance describing uses different than those in the PMN. The 90-day review period for the SNUN expired with EPA not taking action on the significant new uses described in the SNUN. Based on toxicity test data conducted on the PMN substance, EPA is still concerned that toxicity to humans may occur at inhalation exposures of 1,900 ppm. Because EPA finds that exposures from uses described in either the PMN or the SNUN do not result in human exposures that cause an unreasonable risk to human health, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, and use of the substance, including certain commercial, and consumer uses of the substance, may cause significant adverse health effects. Based on this the substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170. Based on these findings, EPA is proposing to modify the SNUR to allow the uses described in S-14-11.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10182.

    PMN Numbers P-10-486 and P-10-487

    Chemical name: Poly[oxy(methyl-1,2- ethanediyl)], .alpha.-sulfo-.omega.-hydroxy-, C12-13-branched and linear alkyl ethers, sodium salts (P-10-486) and Poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], .alpha.-sulfo-.omega.-hydroxy-, C14-15-branched and linear alkyl ethers, sodium salts (P-10-487).

    CAS number: 958238-81-8 (P-10-486) and 958238-82-9 (P-10-487).

    Federal Register publication date and reference: April 4, 2012 (77 FR 20296) (FRL-9333-3).

    Basis for the modified significant new use rule: The PMNs state that the use of these substances will be for downhole injection for enhanced oil recovery. Based on structure activity relationship analysis of test data on analogous anionic surfactants, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 28 ppb for P10-486 and 4 ppb for P10-487 in surface waters. The order was issued under TSCA sections 5(e)(1)(A)(i), (e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), and (e)(1)(A)(ii)(II) based on a finding that these substances may present an unreasonable risk of injury to the environment and will be produced in substantial quantities and may reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial quantities. To protect against these risks, the Agency issued a TSCA section 5(e) consent order which became effective on July 22, 2011. To protect against the risk, the order requires certain hazard communication requirements, specific disposal requirements for processing and use, and prohibits releases from manufacture of the PMN substances resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 28 ppb for P-10-486 and 4 ppb for P-10-487. A SNUR was issued for this chemical substance on April 4, 2012. The SNUR designated as a “significant new use” the absence of any of these measures required in the consent order.

    EPA had evaluated the results of a combined biodegradation and aquatic toxicity test for P-10-486 during PMN review. The test was submitted as part of the PMN submissions. During the review, EPA accepted the data as valid for purposes of ascertaining the environmental fate of the PMN substances (the overall rate of ready biodegradation), but not for purposes of determining potential environmental toxicity of the transformation products to aquatic organisms. Subsequent to issuance of the SNUR, and based on discussions with the Company and other PMN submitters, EPA re-evaluated the data and determined that the data could be used to evaluate the aquatic toxicity of the PMN transformation products. The combined biodegradation/ecological toxicity testing demonstrated that, subsequent to the biodegradation portion of the combined study, no further ecologically toxic substances remained from the P-10-486 parent substance. EPA also believes the results of the test data for P-10-486 apply to the structurally analogous P-10-487 substance. Based on this evaluation EPA did not find that the PMN substances present an unreasonable risk to the environment or human health or will be produced in substantial quantities and may reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial quantities based on activities described in the PMN. As a result EPA revoked the consent order. EPA has determined, however, that other uses of the substances may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the chemical substances meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii). Based on these findings EPA is proposing to modify the SNUR to require notification of any use of the substances without disposal by incineration or injection into a Class I or II waste disposal well; release to water without prior biological treatment (activated sludge or equivalent) plus clarification; or non-industrial use.

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a fish acute toxicity test, freshwater (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1075); an aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity test, freshwater daphnids (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1010); and an algal toxicity test, tiers I and II (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.5400) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10283 and 721.10284.

    PMN Numbers P-10-58, P-10-59, P-10-60, and P-10-184

    Chemical names: Partially fluorinated alcohol substituted glycols (generic).

    CAS numbers: Not available.

    Federal Register publication date and reference: September 11, 2013 (78 FR 55632) (FRL-9398-7).

    Basis for the modified significant new use rule: The PMNs state that the generic (non-confidential) uses of P-10-58 and P-10-59 will be as intermediates in the manufacture of P-10-60, and the generic use of P-10-60 and P-10-184 will be as a surface active agent or surfactant. EPA has concerns for potential incineration or other decomposition products of the PMN substances. These perfluorinated decomposition products may be released to the environment from incomplete incineration of the PMN substances at low temperatures. EPA has preliminary evidence, including data on some fluorinated polymers, which suggests that, under some conditions, the PMN substances could degrade in the environment. EPA has concerns that these degradation products will persist in the environment, could bioaccumulate or biomagnify, and could be toxic to people, mammals, and birds. These concerns are based on data on analogous chemical substances, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and other perfluorinated alkyls, including the presumed environmental degradant. The orders were issued under TSCA sections 5(e)(1)(A)(i), 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(II), based on a finding that these substances may present an unreasonable risk of injury to the environment and human health, the substances may be produced in substantial quantities and may reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial quantities, and there may be significant (or substantial) human exposure to the substances and their potential degradation products. To protect against these risks, the consent order for P-10-58/59/60 requires manufacture (which includes import) of the PMN substances according to the chemical synthesis and composition section of the TSCA section 5(e) consent order, including analysis, reporting, and limitations of maximum impurity levels of certain fluorinated impurities, restricts the use of P-10-58 and P-10-59 as intermediates to make P-10-60, and submission of testing on the PMN substance P-10-60 at five identified aggregate manufacture volumes. A SNUR was issued for these chemical substances on September 11, 2013 designating as significant new uses the absence of these measures. To protect against potential risks, the consent order for P-10-184 requires manufacture of the PMN substance according to the chemical synthesis and composition section of the TSCA section 5(e) consent order, including analysis, reporting, and limitations of maximum impurity levels of certain fluorinated impurities and manufacture of P-10-184 only when the mean number of moles of the ethoxy group is between 3 and 11 or the average number molecular weight is between 496 and 848 daltons based on the amounts of raw materials charged to the reactor. EPA is modifying the SNUR to add P-10-184 because it is the same chemical substance as P-10-60 and to make the SNUR requirements consistent with both consent orders by proposing to add a significant new use that requires reporting if P-10-60/P-10-184 are manufactured other than when the mean number of moles of the ethoxy group is between 3 and 11 or the average number molecular weight is between 496 and 848 daltons.

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of certain fate and physical/chemical property testing identified in the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders would help characterize possible effects of the PMN substances and their degradation products. The TSCA section 5(e) consent order for P-10-58/59/60 contains five production volume limits. The PMN submitter has agreed not to exceed the confidential production volume limits without performing the specified testing on PMN substance P-10-60. Additional testing is included in the preambles to the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders but this testing is not required at any specified time or production volume. However, the TSCA section 5(e) consent order restrictions on manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of the PMN substances will remain in effect until the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders are modified or revoked by EPA based on submission of that or other relevant information.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10515.

    V. Rationale for the Proposed Rule

    Pursuant to § 721.185 and as described in Unit IV, this proposed rule includes 23 chemical substances where EPA determined, based on new information, there is no need to require additional notice from persons who propose to engage in identical or similar activities, or a rational basis no longer exists for the findings that activities involving the substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment required under section 5(e)(1)(A) of the Act.

    This proposed rule also includes a chemical substance, P-01-781, where EPA is modifying the chemical identity information.

    VI. Applicability of the Proposed Rule to Uses Occurring Before Effective Date of the Final Rule

    To establish a significant “new” use, EPA must determine that the use is not ongoing. EPA solicits comments on whether any of the uses proposed as significant new uses are ongoing. As discussed in the Federal Register issue of April 24, 1990 (55 FR 17376), EPA has decided that the intent of TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) is best served by designating a use as a significant new use as of the date of publication of the proposed SNUR rather than as of the effective date of the final rule. If uses begun after publication were considered ongoing rather than new, it would be difficult for EPA to establish SNUR notice requirements, because a person could defeat the SNUR by initiating the proposed significant new use before the rule became effective, and then argue that the use was ongoing as of the effective date of the final rule.

    Thus, any persons who begin commercial manufacture or processing activities with the chemical substances that are not currently a significant new use under the current rule but which would be regulated as a “significant new use” if this proposed rule is finalized, must cease any such activity as of the effective date of the rule if and when finalized. To resume their activities, these persons would have to comply with all applicable SNUR notice requirements and wait until the notice review period, including all extensions, expires.

    EPA has promulgated provisions to allow persons to comply with this SNUR before the effective date. If a person were to meet the conditions of advance compliance under § 721.45(h), the person would be considered to have met the requirements of the final SNUR for those activities.

    VII. Test Data and Other Information

    EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require the development of any particular test data before submission of a SNUN. The two exceptions are:

    1. Development of test data is required where the chemical substance subject to the SNUR is also subject to a test rule under TSCA section 4 (see TSCA section 5(b)(1)).

    2. Development of test data may be necessary where the chemical substance has been listed under TSCA section 5(b)(4) (see TSCA section 5(b)(2)).

    In the absence of a TSCA section 4 test rule or a TSCA section 5(b)(4) listing covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to submit test data in their possession or control and to describe any other data known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see § 720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing. In this case, EPA recommends persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency pertaining to protocol selection. To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select “Test Methods and Guidelines.” The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) test guidelines are available from the OECD Bookshop at http://www.oecdbookshop.org or SourceOECD at http://www.sourceoecd.org. ASTM International standards are available at http://www.astm.org/Standard/index.shtml.

    The recommended testing specified in Unit IV. of the proposed rule may not be the only means of addressing the potential risks of the chemical substance. However, SNUNs submitted without any test data may increase the likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA section 5(e), particularly if satisfactory test results have not been obtained from a prior PMN or SNUN submitter. EPA recommends that potential SNUN submitters contact EPA early enough so that they will be able to conduct the appropriate tests.

    SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information on the following:

    • Human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances.

    • Potential benefits of the chemical substances.

    • Information on risks posed by the chemical substances compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.

    VIII. SNUN Submissions

    According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in 40 CFR 720.50. SNUNs must be on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 721.25 and 40 CFR 720.40. E-PMN software is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems.

    IX. Economic Analysis

    EPA evaluated the potential costs of SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substances in the proposed rule. The Agency's complete Economic Analysis is available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0649.

    X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866

    This proposed action would modify SNURs for 24 chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs. 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).

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    According to PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 to list the OMB approval number for the information collection requirements contained in this rule. This listing of the OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR satisfies the display requirements of PRA and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. This Information Collection Request (ICR) was previously subject to public notice and comment prior to OMB approval, and given the technical nature of the table, EPA finds that further notice and comment to amend it is unnecessary. As a result, EPA finds that there is “good cause” under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), to amend this table without further notice and comment.

    The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.

    Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    On February 18, 2012, EPA certified pursuant to RFA section 605(b) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), that promulgation of a SNUR does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities where the following are true:

    1. A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.

    2. The SNUN submitted by any small entity would not cost significantly more than $8,300.

    A copy of that certification is available in the docket for this rule.

    This proposed rule is within the scope of the February 18, 2012 certification. Based on the Economic Analysis discussed in Unit IX. and EPA's experience promulgating SNURs (discussed in the certification), EPA believes that the following are true:

    • A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.

    • Submission of the SNUN would not cost any small entity significantly more than $8,300.

    Therefore, the promulgation of the SNUR would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this final rule. As such, EPA has determined that this rule would not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of the UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    E. Executive Order 13132

    This action would not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

    F. Executive Order 13175

    This proposed rule would not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This proposed rule would not significantly nor uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor does it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this proposed rule.

    G. Executive Order 13045

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.

    H. Executive Order 13211

    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), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use and because this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    In addition, since this action does not involve any technical standards, NTTAA section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.

    J. Executive Order 12898

    This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721

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

    Dated: April 1, 2015. Maria J. Doa, Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 721 be amended as follows:

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

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

    2. Amend § 721.522 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (a)(1). b. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(i).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 721.522 Oxirane, methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono (3,5,5,-trimethylhexyl) ether.

    (a) * * * (1) The chemical substance identified as oxirane, methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono (3,5,5,-trimethylhexyl) ether (PMN P-99-669, SNUN S-09-1, and SNUN S-13-29; CAS No. 204336-40-3) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) * * *

    (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80. A significant new use is use other than as a wetting agent, dispersing agent and defoaming/deaerating agent in waterborne coatings, inks, and paints, water based adhesives, and ultraviolet curable coatings; wetting agent in water miscible metalworking fluids, powdered construction additives for use in cementitious mortars, grouts and tile adhesives, and in liquid admixtures for concrete; and a substrate wetting and anticratering additive for ultraviolet curable inkjet ink.

    3. Amend § 721.532 as follows: a. Revise the section heading. b. Revise paragraph (a)(1). c. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(i). d. Add paragraph (a)(3). e. Revise paragraph (b)(1).

    The revisions and addition read as follows:

    § 721.532 1-Butanol, 3-methoxy-3-methyl-, acetate.

    (a) * * * (1) The chemical substance identified as 1-butanol, 3-methoxy-3-methyl-, acetate (PMN P-00-618; SNUN S-05-03; and SNUN S-11-4; CAS No. 103429-90-9) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section.

    (2) * * *

    (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80. The significant new use is any use other than the use described in P-00-618.

    (3) The significant new uses for any use other than the use described in P-00-618:

    (i) Protection in the workplace. Requirements as specified in § 721.63(a)(1), (a)(3)(i), (b) (concentration set at 0.1 percent), and (c). When determining which persons are reasonably likely to be exposed as required for § 721.63(a)(1) engineering control measures (e.g., enclosure or confinement of the operation, general and local ventilation) or administrative control measures (e.g., workplace policies and procedures) shall be considered and implemented to prevent exposure, where feasible. Butyl rubber gloves with a minimum thickness of 16.6 mils or Silver shield gloves with a minimum thickness of 2.7 mils have been tested in accordance with the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) F739 method and found by EPA to satisfy the consent orders and § 721.63(a)(2)(i) requirements for dermal protection to 100 percent chemical substance. Silver Shield gloves with a minimum thickness of 2.7 mils have been tested in accordance with the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) F739 method and found by EPA to satisfy the consent orders and § 721.63(a)(2)(i) requirements for dermal protection for paint formulations where concentrations of the chemical substance is 10% or less. Gloves and other dermal protection may not be used for a time period longer than they are actually tested and must be replaced at the end of each work shift.

    (ii) Hazard communication program. Requirements as specified in § 721.72(a), (b) (concentration set at 0.1 percent), (c), (d), (f), (g)(1)(iv), (g)(1)(iv), (g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), (g)(2)(iii), (g)(2)(v), (g)(2)(v), and (g)(5).

    (iii) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80(f), (o), and any application method that generates a vapor, mist, or aerosol when the percent concentration of the SNUN substance in the final product exceeds 10%.

    (b) * * *

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (i) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    4. Amend § 721.633 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (a)(1). b. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(i). c. Remove paragraph (a)(2)(iii). d. Revise paragraph (b)(1).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 721.633 Aluminosilicates, phospho-.

    (a) * * *. (1) The chemical substance identified as aluminosilicates, phospho- (PMN P-98-1275 and SNUN S-11-10; CAS No. 201167-69-3) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) * * *

    (i) Protection in the workplace. Requirements as specified in § 721.63(a)(4), (b), and (c). When determining which persons are reasonably likely to be exposed as required for § 721.63(a)(4) engineering control measures (e.g., enclosure or confinement of the operation, general and local ventilation) or administrative control measures (e.g., workplace policies and procedures) shall be considered and implemented to prevent exposure, where feasible. The following NIOSH-certified respirators with an APF of at least 50 meet the requirements of § 721.63(a)(4): NIOSH-certified air-purifying, tight-fitting full-face respirator equipped with N100 (if oil aerosols absent), R100, or P100 filters; NIOSH-certified powered air-purifying respirator equipped with a tight-fitting full facepiece and high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters; NIOSH-certified supplied-air respirator operated in positive pressure demand or continuous flow mode and equipped with a hood, or helmet or tight-fitting facepiece. As an alternative to the respiratory requirements listed here, a manufacturer or processor may choose to follow the New Chemical Exposure Limit (NCEL) provisions listed in the TSCA section 5(e) consent order for these substances. The NCEL is 0.1 mg/m3 as an 8-hour time weighted average verified by actual monitoring data.

    (b) * * *

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), and (h) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    5. Amend § 721.2076 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (a)(1). b. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(i).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 721.2076 D-Glucuronic acid, polymer with 6-deoxy-L-mannose and D-glucose, acetate, calcium magnesium potassium sodium salt.

    (a) * * *. (1) The chemical substance identified as D-Glucuronic acid, polymer with 6-deoxy-L-mannose and D-glucose, acetate, calcium magnesium potassium sodium salt (PMN P-00-7; SNUN S-05-1; SNUN S-06-4; SNUN S-07-03; and SNUN S-07-5; CAS No. 125005-87-0) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new use described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) * * *

    (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80 The significant new use is any use other than manufacture of the substance where greater than 5 percent of the chemical substance consists of particle sizes below 10 microns.

    6. Amend § 721.5185 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (a)(1). b. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(iii). c. Add paragraph (a)(2)(iv). d. Revise paragraph (b)(1).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 721.5185 2-Propen-1-one, 1-(4-morpholinyl)-.

    (a) * * * (1) The chemical substance identified as 2-Propen-1-one, 1-(4-morpholinyl)- (PMN P-95-169; SNUN S-08-7; and SNUN S-14-1; CAS No. 5117-12-4) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The requirements of this rule do not apply to quantities of the chemical substance after it has been completely reacted (cured) because 2-Propen-1-one, 1-(4-morpholinyl)- will no longer exist.

    (2) * * *

    (iii) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80(y)(1). It is a significant new use to use the chemical substance for any use other than as a monomer for use in ultraviolet ink jet applications unless the chemical substance is processed and used in an enclosed process.

    (iv) Release to water. Requirements as specified in § 721.90(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) (N = 100).

    (b) * * *

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (i) and (k) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this chemical substance.

    7. Amend § 721.5575 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (a)(1). b. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(iii).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 721.5575 Oxirane, 2,2′-(1,6-hexanediylbis (oxymethylene)) bis-.

    (a) * * * (1) The chemical substance identified as oxirane, 2,2′-(1,6-hexanediylbis(oxymethylene))bis- (PMN P-88-2179; PMN P-89-539; and SNUN S-08-3; CAS No. 16096-31-4) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) * * *

    (iii) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80(q). A significant new use of the chemical substance is any non-industrial use other than the commercial use described in S-08-3.

    8. Amend § 721.5645 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (a)(1). b. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(i).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 721.5645 Pentane 1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,5,-decafluoro.

    (a) * * * (1) The chemical substance identified as pentane 1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,5,-decafluoro (PMN P-95-638, SNUN P-97-79, and SNUN S-06-8; CAS No. 138495-42-8) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) * * *

    (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80. A significant new use is any use of the substance other than the uses as described in P-95-638, P-97-79, or S-06-8.

    9. Amend § 721.5713 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (a)(1). b. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(i).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 721.5713 Phenol—biphenyl polymer condensate (generic).

    (a) * * * (1) The chemical substance identified generically as a phenol—biphenyl polymer condensate (PMN P-00-1220 and S-07-2) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new use described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) * * *

    (i) Release to water. Requirements as specified § 721.90(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) (N = 5).

    10. Amend § 721.8145 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (a)(1). b. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(i).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 721.8145 Propane,1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-methoxy-.

    (a) * * * (1) The chemical substance identified as propane,1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-methoxy- (PMN P-01-320; SNUN S-04-2; and SNUN 11-1; CAS No. 375-03-1) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new use described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) * * *

    (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80. A significant new use is any use of the chemical substance other than as a heating transfer fluid, refrigerant, flush cleaning, foam blowing, deposition coatings, histology baths, vapor degreasing, and industrial and commercial aerosol spray cleaning.

    11. Amend § 721.9501 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
    § 721.9501 Silane, triethoxy[3-oxiranylmethoxy)propyl]-.

    (a) * * * (1) The chemical substance identified as silane, triethoxy[3-oxiranylmethoxy)propyl]- (PMN P-01-781; CAS No. 2602-34-8) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new use described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    12. Amend § 721.9502 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (a)(1). b. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(i).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 721.9502 Siloxanes and silicones, aminoalkyl, fluorooctyl, hydroxy-terminated salt (generic).

    (a) * * * (1) The chemical substance identified generically as siloxanes and silicones, aminoalkyl, fluorooctyl, hydroxy-terminated salt (PMN P-00-1132 and SNUN S-11-5) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new use described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) * * *

    (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80(y)(1). A significant new use is any use of the chemical substance other than in graffiti systems, as surface treatment and additive for coatings, adhesives, sealants, paste, insulation and textiles for porous, non-porous, ceramic, metal, glass, plastic, wood and leather surfaces or a surface treatment agent for inorganic filler particles.

    13. Amend § 721.9595 as follows: a. Revise the section heading. b. Revise paragraph (a)(1). b. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(i).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 721.9595 Benzenesulfonic acid, monoC-10-16 -alkyl derivs., compounds with 2-propen-1-amine and Alkyl benzene sulfonic acids and alkyl sulfates, amine salts.

    (a) * * * (1) The chemical substances identified as benzenesulfonic acid, mono C-10-16 -alkyl derivs., compds. with 2-propen-1-amine (PMN P-97-296 and SNUN S-03-10; CAS No. 195008-77-6) and the chemical substances identified generically as alkyl benzene sulfonic acids and alkyl sulfates, amine salts (PMNs P-97-297/298/299 and SNUNs S-03-11/12/13) are subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) * * *

    (i) Release to water. Requirements as specified in § 721.90(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) N = 30.

    14. Amend § 721.9675 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (a)(1). b. Revise paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii). c. Revise paragraph (b)(1).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 721.9675 Titanate [Ti6O13 (2-)], dipotassium.

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified as titanate [Ti6O13 (2-)], dipotassium (PMN P-90-0226; SNUNs P-96-1408, S-08-6, S-09-4, and S-13-49; CAS No. 12056-51-8)) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) * * *

    (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80 (f) and (l). In addition, a significant new use of the substance is importation of the chemical substance if:

    (A) Manufactured by other than the method described in premanufacture notice P-90-226 and significant new use notices P-96-1408, S-08-6, S-09-4, and S-13-49.

    (B) Manufactured producing respirable, acicular fibers with an average aspect ratio of greater than 5. The average aspect ratio is defined as the ratio of average length to average diameter.

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (b) * * *

    (1) Recordkeeping. The following recordkeeping requirements are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance as specified in § 721.125(a), (b), (c) and (i).

    15. Amend § 721.9892 as follows: a. Revise the section heading. b. Revise paragraph (a)(1). c. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(iii).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 721.9892 1,3-Dimethyl-2-imidazolidinone.

    (a) * * * (1) The chemical substance identified as 1,3-Dimethyl-2-imidazolidinone (PMN P-93-1649, SNUN S-04-3 and S-11-3; CAS No. 80-73-9) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) * * *

    (iii) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80(q). A significant new use is non-industrial use other than the commercial uses described in the S-04-3 and S-11-3.

    16. Amend § 721.10008 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(ii). b. Remove paragraph (a)(2)(iii). c. Revise paragraph (b)(1). b. Remove paragraph (b)(3).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 721.10008 Manganese strontium oxide (MnSrO3).

    (a) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (ii) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80(k) (manufacture, processing, or use of the PMN substance if the particle size is less than 10 microns).

    (b) * * *

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a), (b), (c), (f), (g), (h), and (i) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    17. Amend § 721.10182 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (a)(1). b. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(i).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 721.10182 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-.

    (a) * * *

    (1) The chemical substance identified as 1-propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro- (PMN P-07-601 and SNUN S-14-11; CAS No. 754-12-1) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) * * *

    (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. A significant new use is:

    (A) Use other than as a refrigerant: In motor vehicle air conditioning systems in new passenger cars and vehicles (i.e., as defined in 40 CFR 82.32(c) and (d)), in stationary refrigeration, or in stationary air conditioning.

    (B) Section 721.80(m) (commercial use other than: In passenger cars and vehicles in which the original charging of motor vehicle air conditioning systems with the PMN substance was done by the motor vehicle original equipment manufacturer (OEM), in stationary refrigeration, or in stationary air conditioning).

    (C) Section 721.80(o) (use in consumer products other than products used to recharge the motor vehicle air conditioning systems in passenger cars and vehicles in which the original charging of motor vehicle air conditioning systems with the PMN substance was done by the motor vehicle OEM).

    18. Amend § 721.10283 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(i). b. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(ii). c. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(iii). d. Remove paragraph (a)(2)(iv). e. Revise paragraph (b)(1).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 721.10283 Poly[oxy(methyl-1,2- ethanediyl)], .alpha.-sulfo-.omega.-hydroxy-, C12-13-branched and linear alkyl ethers, sodium salts.

    (a) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80(l).

    (ii) Disposal. Requirements as specified in § 721.85. A significant new of the substances is any method of disposal of a waste stream containing the PMN substances other than by incineration or by injection into a Class I or II waste disposal well.

    (iii) Release to water. Requirements as specified in § 721.90(a)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), and (c)(2)(ii).

    (ii) Disposal. Requirements as specified in § 721.85. A significant new of the substances is any method of disposal of a waste stream containing the PMN substances other than by incineration or by injection into a Class I or II waste disposal well.

    (iii) Release to water. Requirements as specified in § 721.90(a)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), and (c)(2)(ii).

    (b) * * *

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a), (b), (c), (i), and (j) are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.

    19. Amend § 721.10284 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(i). b. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(ii). c. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(iii). d. Remove paragraph (a)(2)(iv). e. Revise paragraph (b)(1).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 721.10284 Poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], .alpha.-sulfo-.omega.-hydroxy-, C14-15-branched and linear alkyl ethers, sodium salts.

    (a) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80(l).

    (ii) Disposal. Requirements as specified in § 721.85. A significant new of the substances is any method of disposal of a waste stream containing the PMN substances other than by incineration or by injection into a Class I or II waste disposal well.

    (iii) Release to water. Requirements as specified in § 721.90(a)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), and (c)(2)(ii).

    (b) * * *

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a), (b), (c), (i), and (j) are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.

    20. Amend § 721.10515 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (a)(1). b. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(i).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 721.10515 Partially fluorinated alcohol substituted glycols (generic).

    (a) * * *

    (1) The chemical substances identified generically as partially fluorinated alcohol substituted glycols (PMNs P-10-58, P-10-59, P-10-60, and P-10-184) are subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) * * *

    (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80(k) (manufacture of the PMN substances according to the chemical synthesis and composition sections of the TSCA section 5(e) consent order, including analysis, reporting, and limitations of maximum impurity levels of certain fluorinated impurities; manufacture and import of P-10-60/P-10-184 other than when the mean number of moles of the ethoxy group is between 3 and 11 or the average number molecular weight is between 496 and 848 daltons based on the amounts of raw materials charged to the reactor; manufacture and import of P-10-58 and P-10-59 only as intermediates for the manufacture of P-10-60), and (q).

    [FR Doc. 2015-08090 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2014-0008; 4500030113] RIN 1018-BA32 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 4(d) Rule for the Georgetown Salamander AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Revised proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are amending our proposed rule under authority of section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), that provides measures that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the Georgetown salamander (Eurycea naufragia), a species that occurs in Texas. We are seeking public comments on this revised proposed rule. We also announce the availability of a draft environmental assessment of this revised proposed rule.

    DATES:

    We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before May 11, 2015. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see Public Comments, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

    ADDRESSES:

    Document availability: You may obtain copies of the original proposed rule, this revised proposed rule, and the draft environmental assessment at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2014-0008, or by mail from the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Written comments: You may submit comments on this revised proposed rule by one of the following methods:

    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R2-ES-2014-0008, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then click on the Search button. When you have located the correct document, you may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!”

    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2014-0008; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet Rd, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; telephone 512-490-0057; facsimile 512-490-0974. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or suggestions on this revised proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:

    (1) Whether the measures outlined in this revised proposed rule are necessary and advisable for the conservation and management of the Georgetown salamander;

    (2) The effectiveness of the adaptive management component incorporated within the measures outlined in this revised proposed rule; and

    (3) Additional provisions the Service may wish to consider for a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) in order to conserve, recover, and manage the Georgetown salamander.

    We will consider all comments and information received during our preparation of a final rule. Accordingly, the final rule may differ from this proposal.

    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.

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

    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Previous Federal Actions

    On August 22, 2012, we published a proposed rule to list the Georgetown salamander (Eurycea naufragia), Salado salamander (Eurycea chisholmensis), Jollyville Plateau salamander (Eurycea tonkawae), and Austin blind salamander (Eurycea waterlooensis) as endangered species and to designate critical habitat for these species under the Act (77 FR 50768). On February 24, 2014, we published a final determination to list the Georgetown salamander and the Salado salamander as threatened species under the Act (79 FR 10236), and a proposed rule under section 4(d) of the Act (a proposed 4(d) rule) for the Georgetown salamander (79 FR 10077). Please see the final listing determination (79 FR 10236) for additional information concerning previous Federal actions for the Georgetown salamander.

    Background

    The Georgetown salamander is entirely aquatic and depends on water from the Edwards Aquifer in sufficient quantity and quality to meet its life-history requirements for survival, growth, and reproduction. Degradation of habitat, in the form of reduced water quality and quantity and disturbance of spring sites, is the main threat to this species. For more information on the Georgetown salamander and its habitat, please refer to the February 24, 2014, final listing determination (79 FR 10236).

    The Act does not specify particular prohibitions, or exceptions to those prohibitions, for threatened species. Instead, under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary of the Interior has the discretion to issue such regulations as she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species. The Secretary also has the discretion to prohibit by regulation, with respect to any threatened wildlife species, any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1) of the Act. Exercising this discretion, the Service developed general prohibitions (50 CFR 17.31) and exceptions to those prohibitions (50 CFR 17.32) under the Act that apply to most threatened wildlife species. Alternately, for other threatened species, under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act, the Service may develop specific prohibitions and exceptions that are tailored to the specific conservation needs of the species. In such cases, some of the prohibitions and authorizations under 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 may be appropriate for the species and incorporated into a rule under section 4(d) of the Act. However, these rules, known as 4(d) rules, will also include provisions that are tailored to the specific conservation needs of the threatened species and may be more or less restrictive than the general provisions at 50 CFR 17.31.

    Provisions of the Revised Proposed 4(d) Rule for the Georgetown Salamander

    Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary may publish a rule that modifies the standard protections for threatened species and that contains prohibitions tailored to the conservation of the species and that are determined to be necessary and advisable. Under this revised proposed 4(d) rule, the Service would provide that all of the prohibitions under 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 are necessary and advisable and, therefore, apply to the Georgetown salamander, except as noted below. This revised proposed 4(d) rule would not remove or alter in any way the consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act.

    On December 20, 2013, the City Council of Georgetown, Texas, approved the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone Water Quality Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2013-59). In the February 24, 2014, proposed 4(d) rule (79 FR 10077), the Service proposed that take incidental to activities that are conducted consistent with the conservation measures contained in the ordinance would not be prohibited under the Act. Since we published the proposed 4(d) rule, the City of Georgetown has incorporated, and expanded upon, the ordinance in their Unified Development Code (UDC), which is the primary tool to regulate land development in Georgetown. This revised proposed rule provides greater clarity around the activities that are proposed to be covered.

    For activities outside of habitat occupied by the Georgetown salamander, we propose that take of Georgetown salamanders that is incidental to regulated activities that are conducted consistent with the water quality regulations contained in chapter 11.07 of the City of Georgetown Unified Development Code (UDC 11.07) (https://udc.georgetown.org/) would not be prohibited under the Act. The water quality regulations in UDC 11.07 were finalized on February 24, 2015. Chapter 11.07 of the UDC describes stream and spring buffers, water quality best management practices, and geologic assessments that are required for property development within the Northern Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and the City of Georgetown.

    When a property owner submits a development application for a regulated activity on a tract of land located over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, that individual is required to submit a geologic assessment. The geologic assessment identifies and describes all springs and streams on any subject property, and the UDC establishes buffer zones around identified springs and streams. For springs, the buffer encompasses 50 meters (164 feet) extending from the approximate center of the spring outlet that is identified in a geologic assessment. For streams, the boundaries of the buffer must coincide with either the boundaries of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 1 percent floodplain or a calculated 1 percent floodplain, whichever is smaller. Thus, these stream buffers may vary depending on the size of the stream, but they may be no smaller than 200 feet (61 meters) wide with at least 75 feet (23 meters) from the centerline of the stream. Section 11.07.003 of the UDC states that no “regulated activities” may be conducted within the spring and stream buffers. “Regulated activities” are defined in Title 30, Texas Administrative Code section 213.3(28) as any construction-related or post-construction activities on the Recharge Zone of the Edwards Aquifer having the potential for polluting the Edwards Aquifer and hydrologically connected surface streams. More specific details on spring and stream buffers can be found in sections 11.07.003A. and B. of the UDC.

    In addition to the establishment of these spring and stream buffers, the UDC outlines water quality best management practices designed to minimize sediment runoff, increase the removal of total suspended solids, prevent an increase in flow rates, and ensure spill containment for new or expanded roadways. These regulations in chapter 11.07 of the UDC are designed to reduce water quality degradation that may occur as a result of development. By reducing further water quality degradation that may result from development, these protective measures are also expected to minimize habitat degradation to the Georgetown salamander.

    The UDC also outlines exemptions from the requirement to prepare a geologic assessment, the process by which a landowner may request a variance to the spring and stream buffer requirements, and exemptions to the spring and stream buffer requirements of section 11.07.003. Small (less than 5 acres (2 hectares)) single-family and two-family residential developments are exempt from submitting a geologic assessment; however, these developments are required to implement UDC water quality measures. Property owners may request a variance from the spring or stream buffer requirements. For unoccupied habitat, variances will be considered by the City of Georgetown's Planning and Zoning Commission. Properties with a site occupied by the Georgetown salamander are exempt from the spring and stream buffer requirements in chapter 11.07. Rather, UDC Appendix A outlines voluntary conservation measures to be implemented when undertaking regulated activities that occur on a tract of land with an occupied site, or within 984 feet (300 meters) of an occupied site.

    For activities involving habitat occupied by the Georgetown salamander, we propose that take of the Georgetown salamander that is incidental to regulated activities that are conducted consistent with the voluntary guidelines described in Appendix A of the UDC will not be prohibited under the Act. Similar to chapter 11.07 of the UDC, the guidelines in Appendix A establish stream and spring buffers and allowable activities within those buffers; however, the measures described in Appendix A create larger, more protective buffers than those that appear in chapter 11 for unoccupied sites. First, Appendix A establishes a “No-Disturbance Zone” in the stream or waterway that a spring drains directly into; this zone extends 264 feet (80 meters) upstream and downstream from the approximate center the spring outlet of an occupied site and is bounded by the top of the bank. No regulated activities may occur within the “No-Disturbance Zone.” In addition, Appendix A establishes a “Minimal-Disturbance Zone” for the subsurface area that drains to the spring(s) at an occupied site; this zone consists of the area within 984 feet (300 meters) of the approximate center of the spring outlet of an occupied site, except those areas within the “No-Disturbance Zone.” Most regulated activities are also prohibited in the “Minimal-Disturbance Zone,” but single-family developments; limited parks and open space development; and wastewater infrastructure will be allowed. For additional details on the buffers around occupied sites and prohibited actions, please refer to the UDC Appendix A to Chapter 11.

    Section 11.07.008 of the UDC also establishes an Adaptive Management Working Group (Working Group) that is responsible for reviewing data on a regular basis and making recommendations for specific changes in the management directions related to the voluntary conservation measures for occupied sites in Appendix A. Adaptive management of preservation of the Georgetown salamander is one of the duties tasked to the Working Group. Therefore, the guidelines described in Appendix A may change over time. Appendix A also indicates that the Working Group is authorized to hear and make recommendations to the Service regarding variances from the voluntary guidelines on a case-by-case basis and as long as the proposed variance will achieve the same level or greater level of water quality benefits and conservation objectives to the Georgetown salamander. The Working Group will also develop an annual report regarding the preservation of the Georgetown salamander, continuous monitoring of the Georgetown salamander, assessment of research priorities, and the effectiveness of the water quality regulations and guidelines. Copies of the UDC 11.07 and Appendix A are available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2014-0008.

    Proposed Determination

    Section 4(d) of the Act states that “the Secretary shall issue such regulations as [s]he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation” of species listed as threatened species. Conservation is defined in the Act to mean “to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to [the Act] are no longer necessary.”

    The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the conservation of a species. For example, the Secretary may find that it is necessary and advisable not to include a taking prohibition, or to include a limited taking prohibition. See Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); Washington Environmental Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service, and 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. Wash. 2002). In addition, as affirmed in State of Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988), the rule need not address all the threats to the species. As noted by Congress when the Act was initially enacted, “once an animal is on the threatened list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options available to him with regard to the permitted activities for those species. [S]he may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of such species,” or she may choose to forbid both taking and importation but allow the transportation of such species, as long as the prohibitions, and exceptions to those prohibitions, will “serve to conserve, protect, or restore the species concerned in accordance with the purposes of the Act” (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).

    Section 9 prohibitions make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (including harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or attempt any of these), import or export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any wildlife species listed as an endangered species, without written authorization. It also is illegal under section 9(a)(1) of the Act to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that is taken illegally. Prohibited actions consistent with section 9 of the Act are outlined for threatened wildlife in 50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b). For the Georgetown salamander, the Service has determined that a 4(d) rule tailored to its specific conservation needs is appropriate. This revised proposed 4(d) rule proposes that all prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b) will apply to the Georgetown salamander, except as described below.

    Under this revised proposed 4(d) rule, incidental take of the Georgetown salamander will not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act if the take occurs on privately owned, State, or County land and from regulated activities that are conducted consistent with the water quality protection measures contained in chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the City of Georgetown Unified Development Code. This revised proposed 4(d) rule refers to the definition of “regulated activities” in Title 30, Texas Administrative Code section 213.3(28), which are any construction related or post-construction activities on the recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer having the potential for polluting the Edwards Aquifer and hydrologically connected surface streams. Our rationale for including this provision is explained in the paragraphs that follow.

    The local community in the City of Georgetown and Williamson County has expressed a desire to design and implement a local solution to conserving the natural resources in their county, including water quality and the Georgetown salamander (City of Georgetown Resolution No. 082812-N). Because impervious cover levels within most of the springsheds known to be occupied by the Georgetown salamander are still relatively low, a window of opportunity exists to design and implement measures to protect water quality and, therefore, conserve the salamander. The City and County's approach for accomplishing this conservation goal includes both regulatory and non-regulatory actions, as described below. Regulatory actions include passage of the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone Water Quality Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2013-59) by the Georgetown City Council on December 20, 2013, and the revisions to their UDC (chapter 11.07) finalized on February 24, 2015. Their approach also includes nonregulatory actions, such as the technical guidance provided in Appendix A of the UDC, which outlines additional conservation measures to protect water quality and to avoid direct destruction of occupied sites.

    Habitat modification, in the form of degraded water quality and quantity and disturbance of spring sites, is the primary threat to the Georgetown salamander. The conservation measures in both chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the UDC provide a variety of water quality protection measures, such as the creation of buffers around springs and streams where regulated activities are prohibited, designed to lessen impacts to the water quality of springs and streams in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. Although the UDC addresses water quality, regulating water quantity and groundwater withdrawal is outside the scope of the UDC. The UDC is applied throughout the watersheds that contain the Georgetown salamander. This watershed-level approach works to avoid incremental environmental degradation that may go unnoticed on a small, individual project scale. Through this revised proposed 4(d) rule, we could achieve a greater level of conservation for the Georgetown salamander than we could without it because it encourages implementation of the water quality protective measures that are likely to limit habitat degradation for Georgetown salamanders. The majority of salamanders occur within 164 feet (50 meters) of a spring outlet; this coincides with the spring and stream buffers for unoccupied sites. We also believe the salamander populations exist through underground conduits that may extend 984 feet (300 meters) around cave or spring points; this area coincides with the size of the “Minimal-Disturbance” Zones for occupied sites. By limiting development activities within these respective areas, the measures in the UDC 11.07 and Appendix A are expected to limit water quality degradation in these areas that may provide suitable surface or subsurface habitat for the Georgetown salamander regardless of occupancy. In addition, although the areas that provide recharge and the source water for specific areas occupied by the salamander have not been precisely delineated, this watershed-level approach makes it likely that these unknown recharge areas are covered under the UDC. This is because the UDC requires buffers around all springs and streams where regulated activities are prohibited; thus, water quality impacts are expected to be limited.

    This watershed-level approach also includes an adaptive management component that will allow the Adaptive Management Working Group (Working Group) to evaluate the response of salamander populations to management actions and quickly respond and recommend adjustments, if necessary, to management strategies to protect water quality consistent with conserving the Georgetown salamander. The UDC formalizes the Working Group with representatives from the City of Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, university scientists, private real estate developers, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The role of the Working Group is to:

    • Review scientific information to understand the latest science on watershed management practices and the conservation of the Georgetown salamander;

    • Recommend support for additional Georgetown salamander scientific studies and oversee a long-term monitoring program to ensure that salamander abundance at monitored locations are stable or improving;

    • Conduct and evaluate water quality trend analysis as part of its long-term monitoring program to ensure water quality conditions do not decline and, in turn, result in impacts to salamander abundance; and

    • Make recommendations for changes to the UDC Appendix A for occupied sites if scientific and monitoring information indicates that water quality and salamander protection measures need changes to minimize impacts to salamander populations and to attain the goal of species conservation.

    While a window of opportunity exists to design and implement conservation measures to conserve the Georgetown salamander, human population levels and development are expected to increase rapidly in Williamson County (Texas State Data Center 2012, pp. 166-167). Therefore, the success of the local community's efforts will depend on this robust adaptive management program designed to monitor and quickly assess the effectiveness of the identified conservation measures and strategies in attaining the goal of species' conservation, and to respond quickly and adapt the measures and strategies as needed to attain the goal. The adaptive management approach will ensure that the water quality protective measures are serving their intended purpose of conserving the Georgetown salamander, thereby providing for the conservation of the species. Adaptive management measures related to UDC 11.07 and Appendix A that are agreed upon by the Working Group and consistent with the goal of preserving the Georgetown salamander would be covered under this revised proposed 4(d) rule.

    By not prohibiting incidental take resulting from regulated activities conducted in accordance with the UDC 11.07 and Appendix A, the Service is supporting and encouraging a local solution to conservation of the Georgetown salamander. This revised proposed 4(d) rule would provide the Service the opportunity to work cooperatively, in partnership with the local community and State agencies, on conservation of the Georgetown salamander and the ecosystems on which it depends. Leveraging our conservation capacity with that of the State, local governments, and the conservation community at large may make it possible to attain biological outcomes larger than those we could attain ourselves due to the watershed-scale protection the UDC requires. Further, these local partners are better able to design solutions that minimize socioeconomic impacts, thereby encouraging participation in measures that will protect water quality and conserve the Georgetown salamander. In addition, by not prohibiting incidental take resulting from regulated activities conducted in accordance with UDC 11.07 and Appendix A, the Service is providing a streamlining mechanism for compliance with the Act for those project proponents who comply with the protective measures in the UDC 11.07 and Appendix A and, thus, would be covered by this revised 4(d) rule. Developers who comply with these protective measures outlined in this proposed rule can implement their projects without any potential delay from seeking incidental take coverage from the Service, while also minimizing water quality degradation; this simple approach makes streamlined compliance more enticing for project proponents and is likely to result in increased implementation of water quality protective measures that benefit salamanders than would occur otherwise.

    Based on the rationale explained above, the provisions included in this revised proposed 4(d) rule are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the Georgetown salamander. If an activity that may affect the species is not regulated by UDC 11.07 or is not in accordance with the UDC 11.07 and Appendix A, or a person or entity is not in compliance with all terms and conditions of the UDC 11.07 and Appendix A, and the activity would result in an act that would be otherwise prohibited under 50 CFR 17.31, then provisions of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 for threatened species will apply. In such circumstances, the prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.31 would be in effect, and authorization under 50 CFR 17.32 would be required.

    In addition, nothing in this revised proposed 4(d) rule affects in any way other provisions of the Act such as the designation of critical habitat under section 4, recovery planning provisions of section 4(f), and consultation requirements under section 7.

    Draft Environmental Assessment

    The Service is conducting a National Environment Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) analysis and has prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) to address potential impacts of this revised proposed 4(d) rule. The NEPA analysis accomplishes three goals: (1) Determine if any action, or the absence of action, will have significant environmental impacts; (2) identify any unavoidable adverse effects; and (3) provide a basis for a decision on a proposal. The draft EA and this revised proposed 4(d) rule are being made available concurrently; both are available for a 30-day period for public review and comment (see the DATES and ADDRESSES sections, above). The Service will analyze and consider all substantive comments we receive on both the draft EA and revised proposed 4(d) rule before issuing a final 4(d) rule.

    Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists regarding this revised proposed rule. We will send peer reviewers copies of this revised proposed rule immediately following publication in the Federal Register. We will invite these peer reviewers to comment, during the reopening of the public comment period, on our use and interpretation of the science used in developing our revised proposed 4(d) rule.

    Required Determinations Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

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

    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this revised proposed 4(d) rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996)), whenever an agency must publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a regulatory flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a threshold for “significant impact” and a threshold for a “substantial number of small entities.” See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). Based on the information that is available to us at this time, we certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The following discussion explains our rationale.

    On February 24, 2014 (79 FR 10236), we published the final determination to list the Georgetown salamander as a threatened species. That rule became effective on March 26, 2014. As a result, the Georgetown salamander is currently covered by the full protections of the Act, including the full section 9 prohibitions that make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (including harass, harm, pursue, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or attempt any of these), import or export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any wildlife species listed as an endangered species, without written authorization. It also is illegal under section 9(a)(1) of the Act to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that is taken illegally. Prohibited actions consistent with section 9 of the Act are outlined for threatened species in 50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b). This revised proposed 4(d) rule proposes that all prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b) will apply to the Georgetown salamander, except regulated activities that are conducted consistent with the water quality protective measures contained in Chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the Unified Development Code, which would result in a less restrictive regulation under the Act, as it pertains to the Georgetown salamander, than would otherwise exist. For the above reasons, we certify that if promulgated, the revised proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), we make the following findings:

    (a) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or [T]ribal governments” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of Federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and [T]ribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,” and the State, local, or Tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”

    (b) This revised proposed 4(d) rule proposes that all prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b) will apply to the Georgetown salamander, except activities that are conducted consistent with the water quality protection measures contained in Chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the Unified Development Code, which would result in a less restrictive regulation under the Act, as it pertains to the Georgetown salamander, than would otherwise exist. As a result, we do not believe that this rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

    Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule would not have significant takings implications. We have determined that the rule has no potential takings of private property implications as defined by this Executive Order because this revised proposed 4(d0 rule would result in a less-restrictive regulation under the Endangered Species Act than would otherwise exist. A takings implication assessment is not required.

    Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this revised proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement is not required. This proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the State, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the State, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this revised proposed rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

    Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (Executive Order 13211)

    Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking actions that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. For reasons discussed within this proposed rule, we believe that the rule would not have any effect on energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

    Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

    (a) Be logically organized;

    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;

    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;

    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us revise the proposed rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. 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.

    National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have prepared a draft environmental assessment, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. For information on how to obtain a copy of the draft environmental assessment, see ADDRESSES, above.

    Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to tribes. We determined that there are no known tribal lands within the range of the Georgetown salamander.

    Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and the Southwest Regional Office.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

    Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be amended at 79 FR 10077 (February 24, 2014) as set forth below:

    PART 17—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245; unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend § 17.43 by revising paragraph (e)(2), as proposed to be added on February 24, 2014 (79 FR 10077), to read as follows:
    § 17.43 Special rules—amphibians.

    (e) * * *

    (2) Exemptions from prohibitions. Incidental take of the Georgetown salamander will not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act if the take occurs on privately owned, State, or county land from regulated activities that are conducted consistent with the water quality protection measures contained in chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the City of Georgetown (Texas) Unified Development Code (UDC) dated February 24, 2015.

    Dated: March 31, 2015. Robert Dreher, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08093 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 140819687-5314-01] RIN 0648-BE40 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; Framework Amendment AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in Framework Amendment 2 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic (CMP) Resources in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (Framework Amendment 2), as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils (Councils). If implemented, this proposed rule would remove the unlimited commercial trip limit for Spanish mackerel in Federal waters off the east coast of Florida on weekdays beginning December 1 of each year. Since the trip limit system has been in place, fishery conditions and regulations have changed. This proposed rule intends to modify the current trip limit system to better fit the current fishery conditions and catch limits for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel in the southern zone, while increasing social and economic benefits of the CMP fishery.

    DATES:

    NMFS must receive written comments on the proposed rule by May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2014-0136” by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0136, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Karla Gore, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South St., Petersburg, FL 33701.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    Framework Amendment 2 to the FMP, which includes an environmental assessment and a regulatory impact review, is available from www.regulations.gov or the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karla Gore, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The CMP fishery of the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) includes Spanish mackerel and is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Councils and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

    Background

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that NMFS and regional fishery management councils prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from federally managed fish stocks. These mandates are intended to ensure that fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems. To further this goal, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires fishery managers to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable.

    Management Measure Contained in This Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would modify the commercial trip limit system for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel. Since the current trip limit regime has been in place, changes in fishery conditions, such as an increase of the commercial annual catch limit (ACL), have necessitated modifications to some elements of the current trip limit system.

    Currently, the commercial trip limit for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel in Federal waters off the eastern coast of Florida is 3,500 lb (1,588 kg) from the start of the fishing year on March 1 through November 30. Starting December 1, there is no trip limit on weekdays, and the trip limit is 1,500 lb (680 kg) on weekends. There is no trip limit on weekdays until 75 percent of the adjusted quota (set at 250,000 lb (113,400 kg) below the commercial ACL (adjusted quota)) is landed, after which the trip limit is 1,500 lb (680 kg) every day. When 100 percent of the adjusted quota is reached, the trip limit is reduced to 500 lb (227 kg) until the end of the fishing year or until the full quota is met or projected to be met. The adjusted quota provides a buffer to help prevent the commercial sector from exceeding the commercial ACL. North of a line extending offshore from the state boundary of Georgia and Florida, the trip limit in Federal waters is 3,500 lb (1,588 kg) year-round.

    The lack of a commercial trip limit for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel in Federal waters off the eastern coast of Florida on weekdays beginning December 1 may contribute to early closures. Therefore, this proposed rule would establish a trip limit of 3,500 lb (1,588 kg) for Spanish mackerel in Federal waters offshore of South Carolina, Georgia, and eastern Florida, which is the area recently established by the final rule implementing Amendment 20B to the FMP as the southern zone (80 FR 4216, January 27, 2015). When 75 percent of the adjusted southern zone quota (2,417,330 lb (1,096,482 kg)) is met or projected to be met, the trip limit would be reduced to 1,500 lb (680 kg). When 100 percent of the adjusted southern zone quota is met or projected to be met, the trip limit would be reduced to 500 lb (227 kg) until the end of the fishing year or until the southern zone commercial quota is met or projected to be met, at which time the commercial sector in the southern zone would be closed to harvest of Spanish mackerel. The modified system of trip limits described above would remove the unlimited weekday trip limit to control harvest more effectively.

    Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.

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

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if implemented, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows:

    The objective of this proposed rule is to respond to changing fishery characteristics for the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel component of the CMP fishery, reduce the complexity of the commercial trip limit system for this component, and increase social and economic benefits while ensuring resource protection. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule.

    If implemented, NMFS expects this proposed rule to directly affect all commercial fishing vessels that harvest Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel. A Federal commercial permit is required to harvest Spanish mackerel in the Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in excess of the bag limit and to sell these species. On May 6, 2014, 1,729 vessels possessed a valid Federal commercial Spanish mackerel permit. A valid permit is a permit that has not expired and may be actively fished. Because the Federal commercial Spanish mackerel permit is an open access permit, expired permits are not renewed; if a permit expires before renewal, a new permit would be issued (if applied for) instead of renewal of the expired permit. The Federal commercial Spanish mackerel permit allows fishermen to harvest commercial quantities of Atlantic and Gulf migratory group Spanish mackerel in the Atlantic and the Gulf EEZ. Over the 2007-2008 through 2011-2012 fishing years (March through February), an average of 387 vessels per year recorded harvests of Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel. More recent data on vessel identification and harvest revenues from all fishing activity by these vessels are not available. Therefore, NMFS expects this proposed rule would affect an estimated 387 commercial fishing vessels per year.

    NMFS has not identified any other small entities that this proposed rule would be expected to directly affect.

    The SBA has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S., including commercial fish harvesters. A business involved in commercial fish harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $20.5 million (NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing) for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The estimated average annual gross revenue from all fishing activity by a commercial vessel that harvests Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel is approximately $32,100 (2013 dollars). Because the average annual revenue estimate provided above is significantly less than the SBA revenue threshold for this sector, all commercial vessels expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule are believed to be small business entities.

    This proposed rule would not require any new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements associated with reporting or record-keeping that may require professional skills.

    If implemented, NMFS expects the effects of this proposed rule to range from no economic effects to a small increase in revenue to directly affected fishing vessels. Analysis of the economic effects of the proposed rule was conducted with and without 2012-2013 harvest data, which is the most recent final data available. The commercial harvest of Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel in 2012-2013 was approximately 3.15 million pounds (mp), compared to harvests in excess of 4 mp in the previous three fishing years. Commercial harvests of Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel have shown a cyclical harvest pattern of high, medium, and low harvests on approximately a three-year cycle. As a result, removal of data for the low harvest in 2012-2013 from the analysis may capture the potential effects of the proposed rule under high and low harvest rates.

    Based on data from the 2003-2004 through 2012-2013 fishing years, i.e., inclusive of 2012-2013 data, the proposed rule would be expected to result in a gain in revenue to all directly affected vessels combined of approximately $74,000 (2013 dollars), or approximately $190 per vessel. If data from the 2012-2013 fishing year are excluded from the analysis, the proposed rule would be expected to result in the same total harvest and revenue as the status quo. Although the actual effects may be between these estimates, neither harvest scenario would be expected to result in a reduction in revenue, or profit, to any directly affected small entities as a result of the proposed rule. Instead, this proposed rule would be expected to have a small beneficial to no economic effect on the affected small entities. As a result, this proposed rule, if implemented, would not be expected to have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

    Annual catch limit, Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf of Mexico, Quotas, South Atlantic, Spanish mackerel.

    Dated: April 2, 2015. Eileen Sobeck, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

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

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In § 622.385, paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) are revised to read as follows:
    § 622.385 Commercial trip limits.

    (b) * * *

    (1) Atlantic migratory group. The following trip limits apply to vessels for which commercial permits for Spanish mackerel have been issued, as required under § 622.370(a)(3).

    (i) Northern zone. Spanish mackerel in or from the EEZ may not be possessed on board or landed in a day from a vessel for which a permit for Spanish mackerel has been issued, as required under § 622.370(a)(3), in amounts exceeding 3,500 lb (1,588 kg).

    (ii) Southern zone. Spanish mackerel in or from the EEZ may not be possessed on board or landed in a day from a vessel for which a permit for Spanish mackerel has been issued, as required under § 622.370(a)(3)—

    (A) From March 1 until 75 percent of the adjusted quota for the southern zone has been reached or is projected to be reached, in amounts exceeding 3,500 lb (1,588 kg).

    (B) After 75 percent of the adjusted quota for the southern zone has been reached or is projected to be reached, in amounts exceeding 1,500 lb (680 kg).

    (C) After 100 percent of the adjusted quota for the southern zone has been reached or is projected to be reached, and until the end of the fishing year or the southern zone's quota has been reached or projected to be reached, in amounts exceeding 500 lb (227 kg). See § 622.384(e) for limitations regarding Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel after the southern zone's quota is reached.

    (2) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, the adjusted quota for the southern zone is 2,417,330 lb (1,096,482 kg). The adjusted quota for the southern zone is the quota for the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel southern zone reduced by an amount calculated to allow continued harvest of Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel at the rate of 500 lb (227 kg) per vessel per day for the remainder of the fishing year after the adjusted quota is reached. Total commercial harvest in the southern zone is still subject to the southern zone quota and accountability measures. By filing a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, the Assistant Administrator will announce when 75 percent and 100 percent of the adjusted quota are reached or is projected to be reached.

    [FR Doc. 2015-08069 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 68 Thursday, April 9, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Doc. No. AMS-NOP-15-0005; NOP-15-04] National Organic Standards Board (NOSB): Call for Nominations AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice; call for nominations.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) was established to assist in the development of standards for substances to be used in organic production and to advise the Secretary on the implementation of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA). Through this Notice, The USDA is requesting nominations to fill five (5) upcoming vacancies on the NOSB. The positions are as follows: Farmers/growers (2), consumer/public interest advocates (2), and a USDA Accredited Certifying Agent (1). The Secretary of Agriculture will appoint one person to each of these five positions to serve a 5-year term of office that will commence on January 24, 2016, and end January 23, 2021.

    DATES:

    Written nominations must be postmarked on or before May 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Nomination applications are to be mailed to Rita Meade, USDA-AMS-NOP, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2648-S., Ag Stop 0268, Washington, DC 20250; or electronically sent via Email to: [email protected] Electronic submittals by email are preferred.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michelle Arsenault, (202) 720-0081; Email: [email protected]; or Rita Meade, (202) 260-8636; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The OFPA of 1990, as amended (7 U.S.C. Section 6501 et seq.), requires the Secretary to establish an organic certification program for producers and handlers of agricultural products that have been produced using organic methods. The OFPA includes the requirement that the Secretary establish an NOSB in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2 et seq.). The purpose of the NOSB is to assist in the development of a proposed National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances and to advise the Secretary on the implementation of the OFPA.

    The NOSB is composed of 15 members; including 4 organic producers, 2 organic handlers, a retailer, 3 environmentalists/resource conservationists, 3 public/consumer representatives, a scientist, and a certifying agent. Through this Notice, USDA is seeking nominations to fill the following five (5) positions: Farmers/growers (2), consumer/public interest advocates (2), and a USDA Accredited Certifying Agent (1). As per the OFPA, individuals seeking appointment to the NOSB at this time must: Own or operate an organic farming operation; represent public interest or consumer interest groups; and/or be a certifying agent as identified under section 6515 of this title.

    Selection criteria include such factors as: Understanding of organic principles and practical experience in the organic community; demonstrated experience in the development of public policy such as participation on public or private advisory boards, boards of directors or other comparable organizations; participation in standards development or involvement in educational outreach activities; a commitment to the integrity of the organic food and fiber industry; the ability to evaluate technical information and to fully participate in Board deliberation and recommendations; and the willingness to commit the time and energy necessary to assume Board duties; demonstrated experience and interest in organic production; organic certification; support of consumer and public interest organizations; demonstrated experience with respect to agricultural products produced and handled on certified organic farms; and such other factors as may be appropriate for specific positions.

    To nominate yourself or someone else, please submit: A resume, a cover letter, and a Form AD-755, which can be accessed at: www.ocio.usda.gov/forms/doc/AD-755.pdf. Resumes must be no longer than 5 pages, and include at the beginning a summary of the following information: Current and past organization affiliations; areas of expertise; education; career positions held; any other notable positions held. You may also submit a list of endorsements or letters of recommendation, if desired. Resume and completed requested background information are required for a nominee to receive consideration for appointment by the Secretary.

    If USDA receives a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), for records relating to NOSB nominations, your application materials may be released to the requester. Prior to the release of the information, personally identifiable information protected by the FIOA Privacy Act will be redacted.

    Nominations are open to all individuals without regard to race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, mental or physical disability, marital status, or sexual orientation. To ensure that the recommendations of the NOSB take into account the needs of the diverse groups that are served by the Department, membership on the NOSB shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.

    The information collection requirements concerning the nomination process have been previously cleared by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control No. 0505-0001.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08160 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Document No. AMS-LPS-15-0001] 2015 Rates Charged for AMS Services AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is announcing the 2015 rates it will charge voluntary grading, inspection, certification, auditing and laboratory services for a variety of agricultural commodities including meat and poultry, fruits and vegetables, eggs, dairy products, and cotton and tobacco. The 2015 regular, overtime, holiday, and laboratory services rates will be applied at the beginning of the crop year, fiscal year or as required by law (June 1 for cotton programs) depending on the commodity. This action established the rates for user-funded programs based on costs incurred by AMS.

    DATES:

    April 10, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sonia Jimenez, AMS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 3069-S, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250; telephone (202) 720-5115, fax (202) 720-8477; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended, (AMA)(7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), provides for the collection of fees to cover costs of various inspection, grading, certification or auditing services covering many agricultural commodities and products. The AMA also provides for the recovery of costs incurred in providing laboratory services. The Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 471-476) and the U.S. Cotton Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 51-65) provide for classification of cotton and development of cotton standards materials necessary for cotton classification. The Cotton Futures Act (7 U.S.C. 15b) provides for futures certification services and the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511-511s) provides for tobacco inspection and grading. These Acts also provide for the recovery of costs associated with these services.

    On November 13, 2014, The Department of Agriculture (Department) published in the Federal Register a final rule that established standardized formulas for calculating the fees charged by AMS user-funded programs (79 FR 67313).

    This notice announces the fee rates for voluntary grading, inspection, certification, auditing and laboratory services for a variety of agricultural commodities including meat and poultry, fruits and vegetables, eggs, dairy products, and cotton and tobacco on a per-hour rate and, in some instances, the equivalent per-unit cost. The per-unit cost is provided to facilitate understanding of the costs associated with the service to the industries that historically used unit-cost basis for payment. The fee rates will be effective at the beginning of the fiscal year, crop year, or as required by specific laws (June 1 for cotton programs).

    The rates reflect direct and indirect costs of providing services. Direct costs include the cost of salaries, employee benefits, and if applicable, travel and some operating costs. Indirect or overhead costs include the cost of Program and Agency activities supporting the services provided to the industry.

    These services include the grading, inspection or certification of quality factors in accordance with established U.S. Grade Standards; audits or accreditation according to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards and/or Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) principles; and other marketing claims. The quality grades serve as a basis for market prices and reflect the value of agricultural commodities to both producers and consumers. AMS' grading and quality verification and certification, audit and accreditation, plant process and equipment verification, and laboratory approval services are voluntary tools paid by the users on a fee-for-service basis. The agriculture industry can use these tools to promote and communicate the quality of agricultural commodities to consumers. Laboratory services are provided for analytic testing, including but not limited to chemical, microbiological, biomolecular, and physical analyses. AMS is required by statute to recover the costs associated with these services.

    As required by the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 471-476), consultations regarding the establishment of the fee for cotton classification with U.S. cotton industry representatives were held between January 2014 and the present. Representatives of all segments of the cotton industry, including producers, ginners, bale storage facility operators, merchants, cooperatives, and textile manufacturers were informed of the fees during various industry-sponsored forums.

    Rates Calculations

    AMS calculated the rate for services, per hour per program employee using the following formulas (a per-unit base is included for programs that charge services based on a per-unit base):

    (1) Regular rate. The total AMS grading, inspection, certification, classification, audit, or laboratory service program personnel direct pay divided by direct hours for the previous year, which is then multiplied by the next year's percentage of cost of living increase, plus the benefits rate, plus the operating rate, plus the allowance for bad debt rate. If applicable, travel expenses may also be added to the cost of providing the service.

    (2) Overtime rate. The total AMS grading, inspection, certification, classification, audit, or laboratory service program personnel direct pay divided by direct hours, which is then multiplied by the next year's percentage of cost of living increase and then multiplied by 1.5, plus the benefits rate, plus the operating rate, plus an allowance for bad debt. If applicable, travel expenses may also be added to the cost of providing the service.

    (3) Holiday rate. The total AMS grading, inspection, certification, classification, audit, or laboratory service program personnel direct pay divided by direct hours, which is then multiplied by the next year's percentage of cost of living increase and then multiplied by 2, plus benefits rate, plus the operating rate, plus an allowance for bad debt. If applicable, travel expenses may also be added to the cost of providing the service.

    All rates are per-hour except when a per-unit cost is noted. The specific amounts in each rate calculation are available upon request from the specific AMS program.

    2015 Rates Cotton Fees 7 CFR Part 27—Cotton Classification Under Cotton Futures Legislation Subpart A—Regulations; §§ 27.80-27.90 Costs of Classifications and Micronaire Cotton Standardization Regular Overtime Holiday Includes travel costs in rate Start date Certification for Futures Contract (Grading services for samples submitted by CCC-licensed samplers) $3.50/bale X June 1, 2015. Transfer of Certification Data to New Owner or Certified Warehouse (Electronic transfer performed) $0.20/bale or $5.00 per page minimum X June 1, 2015. 7 CFR Part 28—Cotton Classing, Testing, and Standards Subpart A—Regulations Under the United States Cotton Standards Act; §§ 28.115-28.126 Fees and Costs Subpart D—Cotton Classification and Market News Service for Producers; § 28.909 Costs; § 28.910 Classification of Samples and Issuance of Classification Data; § 28.911 Review Classification. Cotton Grading Form 1: Grading Services for Producers (submitted by licensed sampler) $2.20/bale X June 1, 2015. Form 1 Review (new sample submitted by licensed sampler) $2.20/bale X June 1, 2015. Form A Determinations (sample submitted by licensed warehouse) $2.00/bale X June 1, 2015. Form C Determinations (sample submitted by non-licensed entity; bale sampled under USDA supervision) $2.00/bale June 1, 2015. Form D Determination (sample submitted by owner or agent; classification represents sample only) Instrument and Manual Grade: $2.00/bale; Instrument Grade Only: $1.75/bale X June 1, 2015. Foreign Growth Classification (sample of foreign growth cotton submitted by owner or agent; classification represents sample only) Instrument and Manual Grade: $2.00/bale; Instrument Grade Only: $1.75/bale X June 1, 2015. Arbitration (comparison of a sample to the official standards or a sample type) Instrument and Manual Grade: $4.00/bale; Instrument Grade Only: $2.70/bale; Manual Grade Only: $2.20/bale X June 1, 2015. Practical Cotton Classing Exam (for non-USDA employees) Exam: $105/applicant; Reexamination: $85/applicant X June 1, 2015. Special Sample Handling (return of samples per request) $0.50/sample X June 1, 2015. Electronic Copy of Classification Record $0.05/bale ($5.00/month minimum with any records received) X June 1, 2015. Form A Rewrite (reissuance of Form 1, Form A, or Futures Certification data or combination) $0.15/bale or $5.00/page X June 1, 2015. Form R (reissuance of Form 1 classification only) $0.15/bale or $5.00/page minimum X June 1, 2015. International Instrument Level Assessment $4.00/sample X June 1, 2015. Dairy Fees 7 CFR Part 58—Grading and Inspection, General Specifications for Approved Plants and Standards for Grades of Dairy Products Subpart A—Regulations Governing the Inspection and Grading Services of Manufactured or Processed Dairy Products; §§ 58.38-58.46 Fees and Charges Continuous Resident Grading Service $76.00 $114.00 $152.00 X Oct 1, 2015. Non-resident and Intermittent Grading Service 82.00 123.00 164.00 X Oct 1, 2015. Non-resident Services 6 p.m.-6 a.m. (10 percent night differential) 90.20 135.30 180.40 X Oct 1, 2015. State Graders 82.00 123.00 164.00 X Oct 1, 2015. Equipment Review 82.00 123.00 164.00 X Oct 1, 2015. Export Certificate Services 82.00 N/A N/A X Oct 1, 2015. Special Handling 41.00 N/A N/A Oct 1, 2015. Fax Charge 4.00 N/A N/A Oct 1, 2015. Derogation Application 123.00 N/A N/A Oct 1, 2015. Fruit and Vegetable Fees 7 CFR Part 51—Fresh Fruits, Vegetables and Other Products (Inspection, Certification, and Standards) Subpart A—Regulations; §§ 51.37-51.44 Schedule of Fees and Charges at Destination Markets § 51.45 Schedule of Fees and Charges at Shipping Point Areas Quality and Condition Inspections for Whole Lots $151.00 per lot Oct 1, 2015. Condition—Only Inspections for Whole Lots $125.00 per lot Oct 1, 2015. Quality and Condition or Condition—Only Inspections for Additional Lots of the Same Product $69.00 per lot Oct 1, 2015. Dockside Inspections—Each package weighing <30 lbs $0.038 per pkg. Oct 1, 2015. Dockside Inspections—Each package weighing >30 lbs $0.059 per pkg. Oct 1, 2015. Charge per Individual Product for Dockside Inspection $151.00 per lot Oct 1, 2015. Charge per Each Additional Lot of the Same Product $69.00 per lot Oct 1, 2015. Inspections for All Hourly Work $74.00 $112.00 $148.00 Oct 1, 2015. Audit Services $92.00 1 X Oct 1, 2015. 7 CFR Part 52—Processed Fruits and Vegetables, Processed Products Thereof, and Other Processed Food Products Subpart—Regulations Governing Inspection and Certification; §§ 52.41-52.51 Fees and Charges Lot Inspections $62.00 $93.00 $124.00 X Oct 1, 2015. In-plant Inspections Under Annual Contract (year-round) 49.00 73.50 98.00 X Oct 1, 2015. Additional Graders (in-plant) or Less Than Year-Round 65.00 97.50 130.00 X Oct 1, 2015. Audit Services 92.00 1 X Oct 1, 2015. Meat and Livestock Fees 7 CFR Part 54—Meats, Prepared Meats, and Meat Products (Grading, Certification, and Standards) Subpart A—Regulations; §§ 54.27-54.28 Charges for Service Commitment Grading $61.00 $78.00 $122.00 X Oct 1, 2015. Non-commitment Grading 71.00 78.00 122.00 Oct 1, 2015. Night Differential (6 p.m.-6 a.m.) 78.00 N/A 122.00 Oct 1, 2015. 7 CFR Part 62—Livestock, Meat and Other Agricultural Commodities (Quality Systems Verification Programs) Subpart A—Quality Systems Verification Definitions § 62.300 Fees and Other Costs for Service Auditing Activities $108.00 Oct 1, 2015. 7 CFR Part 75—Regulations for Inspection and Certification of Quality of Agricultural and Vegetable Seeds § 75.41 General Laboratory Testing $52.00 $78.00 $104.00 X Oct 1, 2015. Administrative Fee $13.00 per certificate Oct 1, 2015. Poultry Fees 7 CFR Part 56—Voluntary Grading of Shell Eggs Subpart A—Grading of Shell Eggs; §§ 56.45-56.54 Fees and Charges 7 CFR Part 70—Voluntary Grading of Poultry and Rabbit Products Subpart A—Grading of Poultry and Rabbit Products; §§ 70.70-70.78 Fees and Charges Resident Service (in-plant) 2 $42.68 2 $47.16 2 $67.28 X Oct 1, 2015. Resident, Night Differential (6 p.m.-6 a.m.) 2 45.16 2 49.60 2 69.76 X Oct 1, 2015. Resident, Sunday Differential 2 48.80 2 53.28 N/A X Oct 1, 2015. Resident, Sunday and Night Differential 2 51.28 2 55.76 N/A X Oct 1, 2015. Fee Service (non-scheduled) 77.28 93.24 115.89 Oct 1, 2015. Audit Service 89.20 116.08 139.89 Oct 1, 2015. Science and Technology Fees 7 CFR Part 91—Services and General Information (Science and Technology) Subpart I—Fees and Charges; §§ 91.37—91.45 Laboratory Testing Services $88.00 $103.00 $118.00 Oct 1, 2015. Laboratory Approval Services 3 136.00 163.00 191.00 X Jan 1, 2016. Tobacco Fees 7 CFR Part 29—Tobacco Inspection Subpart A—Policy Statement and Regulations Governing the Extension of Tobacco Inspection and Price Support Services to New Markets and to Additional Sales on Designated Markets; Subpart B—Regulations; §§ 29.123-29.129 Fees and Charges; § 29.500 Fees and charges for inspection and acceptance of imported tobacco Subpart F—Policy Statement and Regulations Governing the Identification and Certification of Non-quota Tobacco Produced and Marketed in Quota Area; § 29.9251 Fees and Charges Domestic Permissive Inspection and Certification (re-grading of domestic tobacco for processing plants, retesting of imported tobacco, and grading tobacco for research stations.) $47.40 $53.70 $64.45 June 1, 2015. Export Permissive Inspection and Certification (grading of domestic tobacco for manufacturers and dealers for duty drawback consideration) $0.0025/pound X June 1, 2015. Grading for Risk Management Agency (for Tobacco Crop Insurance Quality Adjustment determinations) $0.01/pound X June 1, 2015. Pesticide Test Sampling (collection of certified tobacco sample and shipment to AMS National Science Laboratory for testing) $0.0054/kg or $0.0025/pound X June 1, 2015. Pesticide Retest Sampling (collection of certified tobacco sample from a previously sampled lot for re-testing at the AMS National Science Laboratory; fee includes shipping) $115.00/sample and $47.40/hour X June 1, 2015. Standards Course (training by USDA-certified instructor on tobacco grading procedures) $1,200.00/person June 1, 2015. Import Inspection and Certification (grading of imported tobacco for manufacturers and dealers) $0.0154/kg or $0.0070/pound X June 1, 2015. 1 Travel costs outside the United States will be added to the fee, if applicable. 2 Administrative charges are applied in addition to hourly rates for resident service as specified in Part 56, Subpart A, § 56.52(a)(4); Part 56, Subpart A, § 56.54(a)(2); Part 70, Subpart A, § 70.76(a)(2); Part 70, Subpart A, § 70.77(a)(4) and Part 70, Subpart A, § 70.77(a)(5). 3 Travel costs outside the United States will be added to the fee, if applicable. Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 15b; 7 U.S.C. 473a-b; 7 U.S.C. 55 and 61; 7 U.S.C. 51-65; 7 U.S.C. 471-476; 7 U.S.C. 511, 511s; and 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08162 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request—School Breakfast Program AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this information collection. This collection is a revision of a currently approved collection which FNS employs to determine public participation in the School Breakfast Program.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 8, 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: Lynn Rodgers-Kuperman, Branch Chief, Program Monitoring, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 636, Alexandria, VA 22302-1594. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Lynn Rodgers-Kuperman at 703-305-2879 or via email to [email protected] Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Lynn Rodgers at 703-305-2595.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: 7 CFR part 220, School Breakfast Program.

    OMB Number: 0584-0012.

    Expiration Date: August 31, 2015.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Abstract: Section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (CNA) (42 U.S.C. 1773) authorizes the School Breakfast Program (SBP) as a nutrition assistance program and authorizes payments to the States to assist them to initiate, maintain, or expand nonprofit breakfast programs in schools. The provision requires that “Breakfasts served by schools participating in the School Breakfast Program under this section shall consist of a combination of foods and shall meet minimum nutritional requirements prescribed by the Secretary on the basis of tested nutritional research.” This information collection is required to administer and operate this program in accordance with the NSLA (National School Lunch Act). The Program is administered at the State and school food authority (SFA) levels and operations include the submission of applications and agreements, submission and payment of claims, and maintenance of records. The reporting and recordkeeping burden associated with this revision is summarized in the charts below. The difference in burden is mainly due to adjustments, such as the removal of duplicate burden and an increase in schools participating. All of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with the SBP are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget and are in force. This is a revision of the currently approved information collection.

    Affected Public: (1) State agencies; (2) School Food Authorities; and (3) schools.

    Number of Respondents: 110,270 (56 SAs; 20,386 SFAs; 89,828 schools).

    Number of Responses per Respondent: 10.017493.

    Total Annual Responses: 1,104,629.

    Reporting time per Response: 0.226043.

    Estimated Annual Reporting Burden: 249,694.

    Number of Recordkeepers: 110,270 (56 SAs; 20,386 SFAs; 89,828 schools).

    Number of Records per Record Keeper: 295.1368.

    Estimated total Number of Records/Response to Keep: 32,544,740.

    Recordkeeping time per Response: 0.109837.

    Total Estimated Recordkeeping Burden: 3,574,613.

    Annual Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden: 3,824,307.

    Current OMB Inventory for Part 220: 3,924,902.

    Difference (change in burden with this renewal): (100,595).

    See the table below for estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent.

    Affected Public Est. number
  • of respondents
  • Est. frequency
  • of responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Est. total
  • hours per
  • response
  • Est. total
  • burden
  • Reporting State agencies 56 36.3393 2,035 0.2757 561 School Food Authorities 20,386 10.022270 204,314 0.99954 204,219 Schools 89,828 10 898,280 0.05 44,914 Total Estimated Reporting Burden 110,270 10.017493 1,104,629 0.226043 249,694 Recordkeeping State agencies 56 50 2,800 0.17976 503 School Food Authorities 20,386 10 203,860 0.083 16,920 Schools 89,828 360 32,338,080 0.110 3,557,189 Total Estimated Recordkeeping Burden 110,270 295.1368 32,544,740 0.109837 3,574,613 Total of Reporting and Recordkeeping Reporting 110,270 10.017 1,104,629 0.226 249,694 Recordkeeping 110,270 295.137 32,544,740 0.109837 3,574,613 Total 33,649,369 3,824,307
    Dated: April 3, 2015. Audrey Rowe, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08091 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Request for Administrative Review; Food Retailers and Wholesalers AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service, FNS, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This is a revision of a currently approved collection for SNAP, Request for Administrative Review.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 8, 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 has 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 the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments may be sent to: Shanta Swezy, Branch Chief, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 418, Alexandria, Virginia 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Shanta Swezy at (703) 305-1863 or via email to [email protected]. Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office and Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Shanta Swezy, (703) 305-2238.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Request for Administrative Review.

    OMB Number: 0584-0520.

    Expiration Date: September 30, 2015.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Abstract: The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is the Federal agency responsible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 2011-2036) requires that FNS determine the eligibility of retail food stores and certain food service organizations in order to participate in SNAP. If a food retailer or wholesale food concern is aggrieved by certain administrative action by FNS, that store has the right to file a written request for review of the administrative action with FNS.

    Affected Public: Business-for-profit: Retail food stores and wholesale food concerns.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,457.

    Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.2.

    Estimated Total Annual Response per Respondent: 1,748.4.

    Estimated Time per Response: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.17 of an hour per response.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 297.00 hours.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Audrey Rowe, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08153 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Information Collection; National Woodland Owner Survey AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the reinstatement with change for the information collection, National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing on or June 8, 2015 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Brett Butler, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 160 Holdsworth Way, Amherst, MA 01003.

    Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to 413-545-1860 or by email to [email protected]

    Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through relevant Web sites and upon request. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, 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. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.

    The public may inspect the draft supporting statement and/or comments received at Northern Research Station during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 413-545-1387 to facilitate entry to the building. The public may request an electronic copy of the draft supporting statement and/or any comments received be sent via return email. Requests should be emailed to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brett Butler, by phone at 413-545-1387. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: National Woodland Owner Survey

    OMB Number: 0596-0078

    Type of Request: Reinstatement with change

    Abstract: There are an estimated 831 million acres of forest and other wooded land across the United States. Of this forest and other wooded land, 58 percent is owned by millions of corporations, families, individuals, tribes, and other private groups with the remaining 42 percent owned by over a thousand different Federal, State, and local government agencies. Understanding the attitudes and behaviors of the owners and managers of the forest and other wooded land is critical for understanding the current and future state of the nation's forests. The Forest Service conducts the NWOS to increase our understanding of:

    • Who owns and manages the forest and other wooded lands of the United States;

    • Why they own/manage it;

    • How they have used it; and

    • How they intend to use it.

    This information is used by policy analysts, foresters, educators, and researchers to facilitate the planning and implementation of forest policies and programs.

    The Forest Service's direction and authority to conduct the NWOS is from the Forest and Range Land Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 and the Forest and Range Land Renewable Resources Act of 1978. These Acts assign responsibility for the inventory and assessment of forest and related renewable resources to the Forest Service. Additionally, the importance of an ownership survey in this inventory and assessment process is highlighted in section 253(c) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 and the recommendations of the Second Blue Ribbon Panel on the Forest Inventory and Analysis program (FIA).

    Previous iterations of the NWOS were conducted in 1978, 1993, 2002-2006, and 2011-2013. Approval for the last iteration of the NWOS expired on August 31, 2013. As planned, approval for the information collection was allowed to lapse after 2013 to permit a full assessment of the program that has now been completed. If reinstated, the NWOS will operate for another 3-year cycle.

    Information will be collected related to:

    • The characteristics of the land holdings;

    • Attitudes and perceptions of the owners and managers;

    • Resource uses and management activities; and

    • Where applicable, landowner demographics.

    Separate survey instruments are being developed for families and individuals, corporate, and public ownerships. In addition, the owners in urban areas will be sent a different survey instrument. For the families and individuals, the dominant ownership group of forest and other wooded land, a subset of ownerships will be sent survey instruments addressing the following topics, in addition to the core questions from the base survey instrument:

    • Climate change;

    • Wildfires;

    • Invasive species;

    • Land owner values; and

    • Decision making.

    The NWOS provides widely cited benchmarks for the number, extent, and characteristics of owners of forest and other wooded land in the United States. These results have been used to assess the sustainability of forest resources at national, regional, and State levels; to implement and assess forest-land owner assistance programs; and to answer a variety of questions with topics ranging from fragmentation to the economics of timber production. This is the only effort to collect in-depth information about owners of forest and other wooded land at the national scale. It provides longitudinal data to track ownership trends and broad spatial data to allow for comparisons across regions of the country.

    The respondents will be a statistically selected group of individuals, families, American Indian tribes, partnerships, corporations, nonprofit organizations, and other private groups that own forest and other wooded land in the United States in addition to a statistically selected group of Federal, State, and local government agencies that manage forest and other wooded land. A well distributed, random set of sampling points has been established across the country. At each point, remotely sensed data, such as aerial photographs or satellite imagery, will be used to identify forested/wooded points. For the forested/wooded points, public records will be used to identify the owners on record—the names and addresses of the landowners we will contact. The number of owners of forest and other wooded land to be contacted in each State will be a function of the number of owners of forest and other wooded land and the sampling intensity.

    The NWOS will utilize a mixed-mode survey technique involving cognitive interviews, focus groups, self-administered questionnaires, and telephone interviews. Cognitive interviews will be used to test the questionnaires. Focus groups will be used to provide more in-depth understanding of the responses and to explore new areas of inquiry.

    The implementation of the self-administered survey will involve up to four contacts. First, a pre-notice postcard will be sent to all potential respondents describing this information collection and why the information is being collected. Second, a questionnaire with a cover letter and pre-paid return envelope will be sent to the potential respondents. The cover letter will reiterate the purpose of this information collection and provide the respondents with all legally required information. Third, a reminder will be mailed to thank the respondents and encourage the non-respondents to reply. Those who have yet to respond will be sent a new questionnaire, cover letter, and pre-paid return envelope. Telephone interviews will be used for follow-up with non-respondents. For corporations and public agencies, the primary survey instrument will be electronic, and for all other owners, the primary survey instrument will be paper forms with the option for completing the survey electronically online.

    Forest Service researchers will coordinate all components of this information collection. Forest Service personnel with assistance provided by contractors and cooperators, such as university researchers, will conduct the mail portion of the survey, cognitive interviews, and focus groups. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service will conduct the telephone follow-ups. Data will be compiled and edited by Forest Service personnel with assistance provided by contractors and cooperators as appropriate. Forest Service researchers and cooperators will analyze the collected data. National, regional, and State-level results will be distributed through print and/or electronic media.

    This information collection will generate scientifically-based, statically-reliable, up-to-date information about the owners of forest and other wooded land in the United States. The results of these efforts will provide more reliable information on this important and dynamic segment of the United States population; thus facilitating more complete assessments of the country's forest and other wooded land resources and improved planning and implementation of forestry programs on state, regional, and national levels.

    Affected Public: Individuals and Households, the Private Sector (Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations, and/or State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Estimate of Burden per Response: 25 minutes for families, individuals, and other private groups with small holdings; 30 minutes for corporations with large holdings; 15 minutes for public agencies.

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 7,925

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 3,726

    Comment is Invited:

    Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the 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 the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.

    Dated: April 2, 2015. Carlos Rodriguez-Franco, Associate Deputy Chief, Research & Development.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08134 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Information Collection; Understanding Value Trade-offs Regarding Fire Hazard Reduction Programs in the Wildland-Urban Interface AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the extension with no revision of a currently approved information collection, Understanding Value Trade-offs regarding Fire Hazard Reduction Programs in the Wildland-Urban Interface.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing on or before June 8, 2015 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to José Sánchez, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, California 92507.

    Comments may also be submitted via facsimile to 951-680-1501, or by email to [email protected].

    The public may inspect comments received at the Pacific Southwest Research Station, during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to facilitate entry to the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    José Sánchez, by phone at 951-680-1560. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Understanding Value Trade-offs regarding Fire Hazard Reduction Programs in the Wildland-Urban Interface.

    OMB Number: 0596-0189.

    Expiration Date of Approval: August 31, 2015.

    Type of Request: Extension with revision.

    Abstract: Forest Service and university researchers will contact recipients of a phone-mail-phone questionnaire and/or online questionnaire to help forest and fire managers understand value trade-offs regarding fire hazard reduction programs in the wildland-urban interface. Through those contacts, researchers will evaluate the responses of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas residents to different scenarios related to fire-hazard reduction programs, determine how effective residents think the programs are, and calculate how much residents would be willing to pay to implement the alternatives presented to them. This information will help researchers provide better information to natural resource, forest, and fire managers when they are contemplating the kind and type of fire-hazard reduction program to implement to achieve forestland management planning objectives.

    A random sample of residents are contacted via random-digit dialed telephone calls and asked to participate in the research study and type of questionnaire (paper or online versions). Those agreeing to participate then answer a minimal set of questions to determine pre-existing knowledge of fuels reduction treatments and provide a mailing address, as well as agreeing to a date and time for an in-depth interview related to the mail questionnaire or to provide email address where to send them a link for an online questionnaire. After completion of the in-depth interview or online questionnaire, no further contact with the participants will occur.

    A university research-survey center collects the information for mail/online questionnaires. A Forest Service researcher and collaborators at a cooperating university analyze the data collected. Both researchers are experienced in applied economic non-market valuation research and survey research methods.

    The Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as many State agencies with fire protection responsibilities will benefit from this information collection.

    At present the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, Fish & Wildlife Service, and many State agencies with fire protection responsibilities continue an ambitious and costly fuels reduction program for fire risk reduction and will benefit from public opinion on which treatments are most effective or desirable.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: 40 minutes.

    Type of Respondents: Members of the public.

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 1,334.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 659 hours.

    Comment Is Invited

    Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the 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 the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.

    Dated: April 2, 2015. Carlos Rodriguez-Franco, Associate Deputy Chief, Research & Development.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08128 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Mississippi Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Hear Testimony on Civil Rights Concerns Relating to Distribution of Federal Child Care Subsidies in Mississippi AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Mississippi Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Wednesday, April 29, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. CST for the purpose of hearing testimony on civil rights concerns relating to potential disparities in the distribution of federal child care subsidies in Mississippi on the basis of race or color. The committee previously approved a project proposal on the topic in February and plan to hold the public meeting and gather more testimony on the topic May 13, 2015, in Jackson, MS. The testimony heard during this meeting will be preliminary testimony primarily from academics and national experts to provide background to the Committee on the issues.

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-359-3627, conference ID: 5121265. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Member of the public are also invited and welcomed to make statements at the end of the conference call. In addition, members of the public may submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by May 29, 2015. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Administrative Assistant, Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting for public viewing prior to the meeting and will be available at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=257 and clicking on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda:
    Welcome and Introductions 1:30 p.m. to 1:35 p.m. Susan Glisson, Chair Panel Presentations on Childcare Subsidies in MS 1:35 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Question and Answer Session with MS Advisory Committee 2:30 p.m. to 2:50 p.m. Open Comment 2:50 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Adjournment 3:00 p.m. DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 29, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. CST.

    Public Call Information: Dial: 888-359-3627 Conference ID: 5121265 Dated: April 3, 2015. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08096 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship Meeting AGENCY:

    Economic Development Administration, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of an Open Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (NACIE) will hold a teleconference meeting on Wednesday, April 29, 2015, 2:00—3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) and will be open to the public. During this time, members will discuss and vote potential committee initiatives on innovation, entrepreneurship, and workforce/talent. The meeting will take place via teleconference.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, April 29, 2015, Time: 2:00-3:00 p.m. EDT.

    ADDRESSES:

    N/A, Teleconference, Dial-In: 1-877-950-4778, Passcode: 4423486.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Council was chartered on November 10, 2009 to advise the Secretary of Commerce on matters related to innovation and entrepreneurship in the United States. NACIE's overarching focus is recommending transformational policies to the Secretary that will help U.S. communities, businesses, and the workforce become more globally competitive. The Council operates as an independent entity within the Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (OIE), which is housed within the U.S. Commerce Department's Economic Development Administration. NACIE members are a diverse and dynamic group of successful entrepreneurs, innovators, and investors, as well as leaders from nonprofit organizations and academia.

    The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Council's planned work initiatives in three focus areas: workforce/talent, entrepreneurship, and innovation. The final agenda will be posted on the NACIE Web site at http://www.eda.gov/oie/nacie/ prior to the meeting. Any member of the public may submit pertinent questions and comments concerning the Council's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the contact information below. Those unable to attend the meetings in person but wishing to listen to the proceedings can do so through a conference call line 1-888-603-9742, passcode: 1962840. Copies of the meeting minutes will be available by request within 90 days of the meeting date.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie Lenzer Kirk, Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Room 70003, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; email: [email protected]; telephone: 202-482-8001; fax: 202-273-4781. Please reference “NACIE April 29 Meeting” in the subject line of your correspondence.

    Dated: April 3, 2016. Julie Lenzer Kirk, Director, Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08144 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-821-801] Solid Urea From the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solid urea from the Russian Federation (Russia). The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014. The review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, MCC EuroChem (EuroChem). We preliminarily find that EuroChem has not sold subject merchandise at less than normal value during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 9, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Romani or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0198 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is solid urea. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS) item number 3102.10.00.00. While the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.1

    1See memorandum from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Solid Urea from the Russian Federation” dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice.

    Methodology

    The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).2 ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an Appendix to this notice.

    2 On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and Compliance changed the name of Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”) to AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). The Web site location was changed from http://iaaccess.trade.gov to http://access.trade.gov. The Final Rule changing the references to the Regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014).

    Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent exists for EuroChem for the period July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014.

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.3 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.4

    3See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    4Id., and 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.5 Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs.

    5See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If EuroChem's weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis in the final results of this review, we will calculate an importer-specific assessment rate on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for each importer's examined sales and the total entered value of such sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). If EuroChem's weighted-average dumping margin continues to be zero or de minimis in the final results of review, we will instruct CBP not to assess duties on any of its entries in accordance with the Final Modification for Reviews, i.e., “{w}here the weighted-average margin of dumping for the exporter is determined to be zero or de minimis, no antidumping duties will be assessed.” 6

    6See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8102 (February 14, 2012) (Final Modification for Reviews).

    The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.7 This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by EuroChem for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate of 64.93 percent 8 if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

    7 For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice).

    8 The all-others rate established in Urea From the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 52 FR 19557 (May 26, 1987).

    We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of solid urea from Russia entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for EuroChem will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the manufacturer of the merchandise for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 64.93 percent.9 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    9Id.

    Notification to Importers

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

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

    Dated: April 2, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum A. Summary B. Background C. Scope of the Order D. Comparisons to Normal Value 1. Determination of Comparison Method 2. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis E. Product Comparisons F. Date of Sale G. Constructed Export Price H. Normal Value 1. Home Market Viability as Comparison Market 2. Level of Trade 3. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices I. Currency Conversion Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-08207 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-601] Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On November 21, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the changed circumstances review (CCR) of the antidumping duty (AD) order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished (TRBs), from the People's Republic of China (PRC).1 We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results. For these final results, as in the Preliminary Results, we determine that: (1) Shanghai General Bearing Co., Ltd. (SGBC/SKF) is the successor-in-interest to a company of the same name (hereinafter known as SGBC), a producer/exporter of TRBs revoked from the AD order on TRBs from the PRC in 1997; 2 and (2) merchandise from SGBC/SKF is not subject to the AD order on TRBs from the PRC.

    1See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Extension of the Final Results, 79 FR 69424 (November 21, 2014) (Preliminary Results).

    2See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 62 FR 6189 (February 11, 1997) (SGBC Revocation).

    DATES:

    Effective: August 1, 2012.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephen Banea, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0656.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On June 15, 1987, the Department published in the Federal Register the AD order on TRBs from the PRC.3 On February 11, 1997, the Department revoked the order on TRBs from the PRC with respect to merchandise produced and exported by SGBC, effective as of June 1, 1994.4

    3See Antidumping Duty Order: Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China, 52 FR 22667 (June 15, 1987).

    4See SGBC Revocation, 62 FR at 6214.

    Effective August 1, 2012, the majority shareholder of SGBC merged with AB SKF (SKF) and, as a result of the merger, SGBC became part of the SKF Group. On February 13, 2013, SGBC/SKF requested that the Department conduct a CCR pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) to determine whether it is the successor-in-interest to SGBC as it existed prior to its affiliation with SKF, and on June 28, 2013, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice initiating a CCR to address this question.5

    5See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 78 FR 38943 (June 28, 2013).

    On November 21, 2014, the Department published in the Federal Register the notice of preliminary results of this CCR.6 In the Preliminary Results, we provided all interested parties with an opportunity to comment and request a public hearing regarding our preliminary finding that SGBC/SKF is the successor-in-interest to SGBC; at that time, we also extended the final results in this CCR.7

    6See Preliminary Results, 79 FR at 69424-25.

    7Id. at 69425.

    On December 12, 2014, SGBC/SKF and Stemco LP (Stemco), a U.S. manufacturer and importer of TRBs from the PRC, submitted case briefs. On December 19, 2014, SGBC/SKF submitted a rebuttal brief. On January 16, 2015, the Department held a public hearing at the request of Stemco. On January 29, 2015, we extended the final results in this CCR to no later than April 1, 2015.8

    8See letter from Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Acting Director, Office II, AD/CVD Operations, to SGBC/SKF, dated January 29, 2015.

    Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by the order are shipments of tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the People's Republic of China; flange, take up cartridge, and hanger units incorporating tapered roller bearings; and tapered roller housings (except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles, whether or not for automotive use. These products are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.0050, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 8708.70.6060, 8708.99.2300, 8708.99.4850, 8708.99.6890, 8708.99.8115 and, 8708.99.8180. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this CCR are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,9 which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised, and to which we have responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I.

    9See the memorandum from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance entitled, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review Requested by Shanghai General Bearing Co, Ltd.: Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's AD and Countervailing Duty (CVD) Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).10 ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, parties can obtain a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum on the internet at http://trade.gov/enforcement/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    10 On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and Compliance changed the name of the Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS) to AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). The Web site location was changed from http://iaaccess.trade.gov to http://access.trade.gov. The final rule changing the references in the Department's regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014).

    Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review

    In the Preliminary Results, we found SGBC/SKF to be the successor-in-interest to SGBC because the information on the record indicated that SGBC/SKF continued to operate as essentially the same entity that was effectively revoked from the order as of June 1, 1994. In reaching this determination, we considered changes in SGBC's operations covering the period from revocation through August 1, 2012, with respect to several factors, including the following: (1) Management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base. After analyzing the comments received, and for the reasons stated in the Preliminary Results and discussed further in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we continue to find that SGBC/SKF is the successor-in-interest to SGBC. As a result of this determination, we find that SGBC/SKF is entitled to SGBC's revoked status. Consequently, the Department will apply this determination retroactively and will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, all unliquidated entries entered, or withdrawn from warehouse on or after August 1, 2012, the date of SGBC/SKF's accession into the SKF Group, in accordance with past practice.11

    11See, e.g., Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Review, 71 FR 24643 (April 26, 2006) (where the Department applied the changed circumstances determination retroactively because the company in question was excluded from the AD order).

    Notification

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

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3).

    Dated: April 1, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of the Order Discussion of the Issues 1. The Time Period Examined 2. Whether the Department Should Distinguish Between Incremental vs. Rapid Changes 3. Changes to the Four Factors Considered in Successor-in-Interest Determinations Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-08222 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-405-803] Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    In response to a request from Ashland Specialty Ingredients, a division of Hercules Inc., (Petitioner), and CP Kelco Oy (CP Kelco), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on purified carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from Finland. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014. The review covers one respondent, CP Kelco. We preliminarily find that sales of the subject merchandise by CP Kelco have not been made at prices below normal value (NV) during the POR. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 9, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4475 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order is all purified CMC, sometimes also referred to as purified sodium CMC, polyanionic cellulose, or cellulose gum, which is a white to off-white, non-toxic, odorless, biodegradable powder, comprising sodium CMC that has been refined and purified to a minimum assay of 90 percent. The merchandise subject to the order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States at subheading 3912.31.00.1

    1 For a full description of the scope of the order, see the memorandum from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary Enforcement & Compliance, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance, “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), which is dated concurrently with this notice, and is hereby incorporated by reference. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum appears in Appendix I of this notice.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price and constructed export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margin for the period July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014.

    Exporter/manufacturer Margin
  • (percent)
  • CP Kelco Oy 0.00
    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice.2 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit cases briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.3 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.4 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS.5 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the date the document is due.

    2See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    3See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    4See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    5See 19 CFR 351.303.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Departments electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.6 Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the date and time for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    6See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, within 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless extended, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If CP Kelco's weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis in the final results of this review, we will calculate an importer-specific assessment rate on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the importer's examined sales and the total entered value of such sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). If CP Kelco's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis in the final results of review, or an importer-specific rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to dumping margins.7

    7See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8102 (February 14, 2012) (Final Modification for Reviews).

    The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.8 This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by CP Kelco for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

    8 For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for CP Kelco Oy will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review except if the rate is de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period in which the manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 6.65 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation.9 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    9See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands and Sweden, 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005).

    Notification to Importers

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

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

    Dated: April 2, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of The Order Methodology Fair Value Comparisons Product Comparisons Determination of Comparison Margins Results of Differential Pricing Analysis Date of Sale U.S. Price Export Price Constructed Export Price U.S. Sample Sales Normal Value Home Market Viability as Comparison Market Calculation of NV Based On Comparison Market Prices Home Market Sample Sales Cost of Production Analysis Level of Trade Analysis CEP Offset Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value Currency Conversion Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2015-08210 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-827] Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On February 26, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the notice of initiation and the preliminary results of the changed circumstances review (CCR) of the antidumping duty order on certain cased pencils (pencils) from the People's Republic of China (PRC), in which the Department preliminarily determined that Beijing FILA Dixon Stationery Co., Ltd.1 (Beijing Dixon), as currently structured under its new business license, is the successor-in-interest to Beijing Dixon.2 For these final results, the Department continues to find that Beijing Dixon is the successor-in-interest to Beijing Dixon as that entity existed at the time the Department revoked the order 3 with respect to Beijing Dixon.4 Accordingly, the Revocation of the antidumping duty Order with respect to Beijing Dixon continues to apply to Beijing Dixon as currenly structured.

    1 A/k/a Beijing Dixon Ticonderoga Stationery Company, Ltd., and Beijing Dixon Stationery Company.

    2See Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 80 FR 10457 (February 26, 2015) (Preliminary Results) and accompanying memorandum, “Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China: Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review Requested by the Dixon Ticonderoga Companies” dated February 18, 2015 (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    3See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 66909 (December 28, 1994) (Order).

    4See Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination To Revoke Order In Part; 2010-2011, 78 FR 42932 (July 18, 2013) (Revocation) and accompanying issues and decision memorandum (IDM).

    DATES:

    Effective: April 9, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sergio Balbontin, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6478.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On December 28, 1994, the Department published the Order on pencils from the PRC.5 On July 18, 2013, the Department revoked the Order on pencils from the PRC with respect to pencils exported by Beijing Dixon.6

    5See Order.

    6See Revocation and accompanying IDM.

    On November 27, 2014, Beijing Dixon requsted that the Department conduct a CCR pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 19 CFR 351.216(b), and 19 CFR 351.221, to determine whether it is the successor-in-interest to Beijing Dixon for purposes of the Order.7 On February 26, 2015, the Department concurrently initiated and published the Preliminary Results of the CCR of the antidumping duty Order on pencils exported by Beijing Dixon.8 We invited comments from interested parties, but no party commented on the Preliminary Results or requested a hearing. This CCR is being conducted in accordance with section pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.216, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3).

    7See letter from Beijing Dixon to the Department dated November 27, 2014, “Request for Changed Circumstances Review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.216 on behalf of Dixon Ticonderoga Company.”

    8See Prelilminary Results and Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order includes pencils from the PRC. Pencils are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 9609.1010. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description is dispositive.9

    9 For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 4.

    Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review

    Because no interested parties submitted comments on the Department's Preliminary Results, and because there is no other information or evidence on the record that calls into question the Preliminary Results, the Department adopts the reasoning and findings of fact outlined in the Prelilminary Results and Preliminary Decision Memorandum, and determines that Beijing Dixon is the successor-in-interest to Beijing Dixon at the time of the Revocation. 10

    10See Preliminary Results, 80 FR at 10457.

    Application of the Revocation of the Order

    As explained in the Preliminary Resuts and the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, the Revocation of the antidumping duty Order with respect to Beijing Dixon, as that entity existed at the time of Revocation, continues to apply to Beijing Dixon as currenly structured.

    Instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection

    As a result of this determination, the Department finds that entries of subject merchandise exported by Beijing Dixon as currently structured should receive the same antidumping duty treatment with respect to cased pencils as its predecessor-in-interest. Accordingly, the Department will continue to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate entries for Beijing Dixon without regard to antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an 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 or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. See 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. See 19 CFR part 354.

    These final results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(e).

    Dated: April 3, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08221 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Pacific Islands Region Coral Reef Ecosystems Permit Form 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 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Walter Ikehara, (808) 725-5175 or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a current information collection.

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requires, as codified under 50 CFR part 665, any person (1) fishing for, taking, retaining, or using a vessel to fish for Western Pacific coral reef ecosystem management unit species in the designated low-use Marine Protected Areas, (2) fishing for any of these species using gear not specifically allowed in the regulations, or (3) fishing for, taking, or retaining any Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa in the coral reef ecosystem regulatory area, to obtain and carry a permit. A receiving vessel owner must also have a transshipment permit for at-sea transshipment of coral reef ecosystem management unit species. The permit application form provides basic information about the permit applicant, vessel, fishing gear and method, target species, projected fishing effort, etc., for use by NMFS and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council in determining eligibility for permit issuance. The information is important for understanding the nature of the fishery and provides a link to participants. It also aids in the enforcement of Fishery Ecosystem Plan measures.

    II. Method of Collection

    Information is submitted to NMFS, in the form of paper permit application forms.

    III. Data

    OMB Number: 0648-0463.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 12.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours per special permit application, 10 minutes per transshipment permit.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 31.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $100 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: April 3, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08094 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD892 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) River Herring and Shad (RH/S) Advisory Panel (AP) will meet to develop recommendations for the 2016-18 RH/S Cap on the Atlantic mackerel fishery and provide general input on RH/S conservation.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be Friday, April 24, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via webinar, but anyone can also attend at the Council office address (see below). The webinar link is: http://mafmc.adobeconnect.com/2015rhsap/. Please call the Council at least 24 hours in advance if you wish to attend at the Council office.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State St., Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255. The Council's Web site, www.mafmc.org will also have details on webinar access and any background materials.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Council's River Herring and Shad (RH/S) Advisory Panel (AP) will meet to develop recommendations for the 2016-18 RH/S Cap on the Atlantic mackerel fishery and provide general input on RH/S conservation. There will also be time for public questions and comments. The Council will utilize the input from the RH/S AP at the June 2015 Council meeting when setting the 2016-18 RH/S Cap on the Atlantic mackerel fishery and discussing RH/S conservation.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08173 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Permitting, Vessel Identification, and Reporting Requirements for the Pelagic Squid Jig Fishery in the Western Pacific Region 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 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Walter Ikehara, (808) 725-5175 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Federal regulations at Title 50, Part 665, of the Code of Federal Regulations require that owners of vessels fishing for, or landing, pelagic squid in the western Pacific region obtain a permit from NOAA Fisheries Service (NMFS). In addition, the regulations require vessel operators to report fishing activity and harvest on daily logbooks and mark their vessels for identification.

    The information collected is used to identify participants in the fishery, document fishing activities and landings, determine the conditions of the stocks, assess the effectiveness of management measures, evaluate the benefits and costs of changes in management measures, and monitor and respond to accidental takes of protected species, including seabirds, turtles, and marine mammals.

    Vessel owners must identify their vessels to assist in aerial and at-sea enforcement of fishing regulations.

    II. Method of Collection

    Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include email of electronic forms, and mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0589.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved collection).

    Affected Public: Individuals or household; business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 30.

    Estimated Time per Response: Permit applications, 30 minutes; permit appeal, 2 hours; logbooks, 15 minutes; vessel identification, 45 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 265 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $2,190 in fees/mailing/reporting/identification 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: April 3, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08095 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal Nos. 15-12] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, DoD.

    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 15-12 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN09AP15.001 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 15-12 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: Republic of Korea.

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment $81 million Other $ 0 million TOTAL $81 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase: 400 AGM-114R1 Hellfire II Semi-Active Laser Missiles with containers, 100 ATM-114Q Air Training Missiles, and 12 M36E8 Hellfire II Captive Air Training Missiles.

    (iv) Military Department: Army (ZCF, Amendment #3)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: FMS case ZCF-$1.6B-2May13

    (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 Attached Annex

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: 30 March 2015

    * as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act

    Policy Justification Korea—AGM-114R1 Hellfire Missiles

    The Republic of Korea (ROK) has requested a possible sale of 400 AGM-114R1 Hellfire II Semi-Active Laser Missiles with containers, 100 ATM-114Q Air Training Missiles, and 12 M36E8 Hellfire II Captive Air Training Missiles. The estimated cost is $81 million.

    This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by meeting the legitimate security and defense needs of an ally and partner nation. The ROK is one of the major political and economic powers in East Asia and the Western Pacific and a key partner of the United States in ensuring peace and stability in that region. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist our Korean ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability.

    The ROK intends to use these Hellfire missiles to supplement its existing missile capability and current weapon inventory. This sale will contribute to the ROK's force modernization goals and enhance interoperability with U.S. forces. The ROK will use this enhanced capability to strengthen its homeland defense and deter regional threats. The ROK is capable of absorbing and maintaining these missiles in its inventory.

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

    The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin Corporation in Orlando, Florida. There are no known offset agreements in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require any additional U.S. Government or U.S. contractor personnel in Korea.

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

    Transmittal No. 15-12 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The AGM-114R Hellfire II Air-to-Ground Missile with container is used against heavy and light armored targets, thin skinned vehicles, urban structures, bunkers, caves and personnel. The missile is Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) based, with a variable delay fuse, improved safety and reliability. The highest level of classified information that could be disclosed by a proposed sale or by testing of the end item is Secret; the highest level that must be disclosed for production, maintenance, or training is Confidential.

    2. The ATM-114Q Air Training Missile with mass stimulant warhead replicates the shape, aerodynamic properties, weight, center-of-gravity, and moment-of-inertia properties of a Hellfire II missile. The practice missile can be launched in a training environment simulating a tactical engagement without destroying the target. The highest level of classified information that could be disclosed by a proposed sale or by testing of the end item is Secret; the highest level that must be disclosed for maintenance, or training is Confidential.

    3. The M36E8 Captive Air Training Missile (CATM) consists of a functional guidance section coupled to an inert missile bus and is used for flight training but cannot be launched. The missile has an operational semi-active laser seeker that can search for and lock-on to laser-designated targets. The CATM functions as a tactical missile (without launch capability) during captive carry on the aircraft, making it suitable for training the aircrew in simulated Hellfire missile target acquisition and lock. The highest level of classified information that could be disclosed by a proposed sale or by testing of the end item is Secret; the highest level that must be disclosed for production, maintenance, or training is Confidential.

    4. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems 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 Republic of Korea.

    [FR Doc. 2015-08166 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-109-000.

    Applicants: Bicent Power LLC, Tanner Street Generation, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for Expedited Action of Bicent Power LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 4/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150401-5734.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-710-002.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Service Agreement No. 341—Revised Exhibit A to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150402-5201.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1080-001.

    Applicants: Beethoven Wind, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Amendment to new to be effective 2/27/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150402-5236.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1430-000.

    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Reactive Supply and Voltage Control Amendment to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150401-5488.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1431-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-04-01_PSCo-THRM-IA-114-0.0.0—Filing to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150401-5492.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1432-000.

    Applicants: AEP Generation Resources Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Reactive Supply and Voltage Control Amendment to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150401-5493.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1433-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.

    Description: Application of Public Service Company of New Mexico for 2015 Transmission Formula Rate for Post-Retirement Benefits Other than Pensions.

    Filed Date: 4/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150401-5505.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1434-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Emera Maine.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Emera Maine—Schedule 20A and 21 to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150401-5519.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1435-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-04-01 Perfect Unit Adjustment Filing to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150401-5529.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1436-000.

    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, Inc., Entergy Texas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing per 35.1: OpCos Tax—Pension Costs 205 Filing 4-1-2015 to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 4/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150401-5588.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1437-000.

    Applicants: Entergy Texas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): EGSL-ETI Acquisition Adjustment to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 4/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150401-5609.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1438-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): GIA and Distribution Service Agmt with SunEdison Standard Ave. Santa Ana Project to be effective 4/3/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150402-5001.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1439-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Cancellation GIAs for Boomer Solar 8 LLC and Boomer Solar 14 LLC to be effective 4/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150402-5002.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1440-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Cleco Power LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-04-02_Cleco Power—City of Alexandria, LA JPZ Agreement to be effective 12/1/2014.

    Filed Date: 4/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150402-5147.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1441-000.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Notices of Cancellation and Termination—Service Agreements to be effective 4/3/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150402-5184.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1442-000.

    Applicants: Municipal Energy of PA, LLC.

    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Market-Based Rate Tariff Application to be effective 5/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150402-5199.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA15-1-000.

    Applicants: Lea Power Partners, LLC.

    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Lea Power Partners, LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150401-5732.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/15.

    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: April 2, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08092 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL 9925-91-OGC] Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

    ACTION:

    Notice of Proposed Consent Decree; Request for Public Comment

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“CAA” or the “Act”), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Bill Green (“Plaintiff”): Bill Green v. McCarthy, No. 4:14-cv-05093-TOR (E.D. WA). On September 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed this complaint alleging that Gina McCarthy, in her official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “the Agency”), failed to perform a non-discretionary duty to grant or deny within 60 days two petitions submitted by Plaintiff. In his petitions, Plaintiff requested that EPA object to a CAA title V permit issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology to the United States Department of Energy, for purposes of operating the Hanford Site in Benton County, Washington. The proposed consent decree would establish a deadline for EPA to respond to these petitions.

    DATES:

    Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received by May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OGC-2015-0253, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method); by email to [email protected]; by mail to EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jonathan Skinner-Thompson, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-0291; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    This proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff seeking to compel the Administrator to take actions under CAA section 505(b)(2). Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA would agree to sign a response to the petitions by May 29, 2015. The proposed consent decree also provides for the possibility that circumstances beyond EPA's reasonable control could delay compliance with the May 29, 2015 deadline, and provides a framework for extending that deadline. In addition, the proposed consent decree also enumerates Plaintiff's right to seek costs of litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees, and provides that payment of those costs will constitute a full and complete settlement of all of Plaintiff's costs in connection with this litigation.

    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who are not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to this consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the consent decree will be affirmed.

    II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent Decree A. How can I get a copy of the proposed consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2015-0253) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

    An electronic version of the public docket is available through www.regulations.gov. You may use the www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select “search.”

    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

    B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. 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.

    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (email) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an email comment directly to the Docket without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: April 1, 2015. Lorie J. Schmidt, Associate General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08177 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2015-0002; FRL-9925-89-OECA] Inquiry To Learn Whether Businesses Assert Business Confidentiality Claims Regarding Waste Import and Export AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) receives from time to time Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for documentation received or issued by EPA or data contained in EPA database systems pertaining to the export and import of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste from/to the United States, the export of cathode ray tubes (CRTs) and spent lead acid batteries (SLABs) from the United States, and the export and import of RCRA universal waste from/to the United States. These documents and data may identify or reference multiple parties, and describe transactions involving the movement of specified materials in which the parties propose to participate or have participated. The purpose of this notice is to inform “affected businesses” about the documents or data sought by these types of FOIA requests in order to provide the businesses with the opportunity to assert claims that any of the information sought that pertains to them is entitled to treatment as confidential business information (CBI), and to send comments to EPA supporting their claims for such treatment. Certain businesses, however, do not meet the definition of “affected business,” and are not covered by today's notice. They consist of any business that actually submitted to EPA any document at issue pursuant to applicable RCRA regulatory requirements and did not assert a CBI claim as to information that pertains to that business in connection with the document at the time of its submission; they have waived their right to do so at a later time. Nevertheless, other businesses identified or referenced in the documents that were submitted to EPA by the submitting business may have a right to assert a CBI claim concerning information that pertains to them and may do so in response to this notice.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 11, 2015. The period for submission of comments may be extended if, before the comments are due, you make a request for an extension of the comment period and it is approved by the EPA legal office. Except in extraordinary circumstances, the EPA legal office will not approve such an extension without the consent of any person whose request for release of the information under the FOIA is pending.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2015-0002, by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected]

    Address: Eva Kreisler, International Compliance Assurance Division, Office of Federal Activities, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2254A, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2015-0002. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Instructions about how to submit comments claimed as CBI are given later in this notice.

    The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, 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. Please include your name and other contact information with any disk or CD-ROM you submit by mail. 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. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the HQ EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the docket for this notice is (202) 566-1752.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eva Kreisler, International Compliance Assurance Division, Office of Federal Activities, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2254A, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-8186; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Today's notice relates to any documents or data in the following areas: (1) Export of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste, during calendar year 2014 or before, under 40 CFR part 262, subparts E and H; (2) import of RCRA hazardous waste, during calendar year 2014 or before, under 40 CFR part 262, subparts F and H; (3) transit of RCRA hazardous waste, during calendar year 2014 or before, under 40 CFR part 262, subpart H, through the United States and foreign countries; (4) export of cathode ray tubes, during calendar year 2014 or before, under 40 CFR part 261, subpart E; (5) exports of non-crushed spent lead acid batteries with intact casings, during calendar year 2014 or before, under 40 CFR part 266 subpart G; (6) export and import of RCRA universal waste, during calendar year 2014 or before, under 40 CFR part 273, subparts B, C, D, and F; (7) submissions from transporters, during calendar year 2014 or before, under 40 CFR part 263, or from treatment, storage or disposal facilities under 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, related to exports or imports of hazardous waste which occurred during calendar year 2014 or before, including receiving facility notices under 40 CFR 264.12(a)(1) and 265.12(a)(1) and import consent documentation under 40 CFR 264.71(a)3) and 265.71(a)(3).

    I. General Information

    EPA has previously published notices similar to this one in the Federal Register, the latest one being at 79 FR 7662, February 10, 2014 that address issues similar to those raised by today's notice. The Agency did not receive any comments on the previous notices. Since the publication of the February 10, 2014 the Agency has continued to receive FOIA requests for documents and data contained in EPA's database related to hazardous waste exports and imports.

    II. Issues Covered by This Notice

    Specifically, EPA receives FOIA requests from time to time for documentation or data related to hazardous waste exports and imports that may identify or reference multiple parties, and that describe transactions involving the movement of specified materials in which the parties propose to participate or have participated. This notice informs “affected businesses,” 1 which could include, among others, “transporters,” 2 and “consignees,” 3 of the requests for information in EPA database systems and/or contained in one or more of the following documents: (1) Documents related to the export of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste, during calendar year 2014 or before, under 40 CFR part 262, subparts E and H, including but not limited to the “notification of intent to export,” 4 “manifests,” 5 “annual reports,” 6 “EPA acknowledgements of consent,” 7 “any subsequent communication withdrawing a prior consent or objection,” 8 “responses that neither consent nor object,” “exception reports,” 9 “transit notifications,” 10 and “renotifications”; 11 (2) documents related to the import of hazardous waste, during calendar year 2014 or before, under 40 CFR part 262, subparts F and H, including but not limited to notifications of intent to import hazardous waste into the U.S. from foreign countries; (3) documents related to the transit of hazardous waste, during calendar year 2014 or before, under 40 CFR part 262, subpart H, including notifications from U.S. exporters of intent to transit through foreign countries, or notifications from foreign countries of intent to transit through the U.S.; (4) documents related to the export of cathode ray tubes (CRTs), during calendar year 2014 or before, under 40 CFR part 261, subpart E, including but not limited to notifications of intent to export CRTs; (5) documents related to the export of non-crushed spent lead acid batteries (SLABs) with intact casings, during calendar year 2014 or before, under 40 CFR part 266 subpart G, including but not limited to notifications of intent to export SLABs; (6) submissions from transporters under 40 CFR part 263, or from treatment, storage or disposal facilities under 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, related to exports or imports of hazardous waste which occurred during calendar year 2014 or before, including receiving facility notices under 40 CFR 264.12(a)(1) and 265.12(a)(1) and import consent documentation under 40 CFR 264.71(a)(3) and 265.71(a)(3); and (7) documents related to the export and import of RCRA “universal waste” 12 under 40 CFR part 273, subparts B, C, D, and F.

    1 The term “affected business” is defined at 40 CFR 2.201(d), and is set forth in this notice, below.

    2 The term “transporter” is defined at 40 CFR 260.10.

    3 The term “consignee” is defined, for different purposes, at 40 CFR 262.51 and 262.81(c).

    4 The term “notification of intent to export” is described at 40 CFR 262.53.

    5 The term “manifest” is defined at 40 CFR 260.10.

    6 The term “annual reports” is described at 40 CFR 262.56.

    7 The term “EPA acknowledgement of consent” is defined at 40 CFR 262.51.

    8 The requirement to forward to the exporter “any subsequent communication withdrawing a prior consent or objection” is found at 42 U.S.C. 6938(e).

    9 The term “exception reports” is described at 40 CFR 262.55.

    10 The term “transit notifications” is described at 40 CFR 262.53(e).

    11 The term “renotifications” is described at 40 CFR 262.53(c).

    12 The term “universal waste” is defined at 40 CFR 273.9.

    Certain businesses, however, do not meet the definition of “affected business,” and are not covered by today's notice. They consist of any business that actually submitted information responsive to a FOIA request, under the authority of 40 CFR parts 260 through 266 and 268, and did not assert a claim of business confidentiality covering any of that information at the time of submission. As set forth in the RCRA regulations at 40 CFR 260.2(b), “if no such [business confidentiality] claim accompanies the information when it is received by EPA, it may be made available to the public without further notice to the person submitting it.” Thus, for purposes of this notice and as a general matter under 40 CFR 260.2(b), a business that submitted to EPA the documents at issue, pursuant to applicable regulatory requirements, and that failed to assert a claim as to information that pertains to it at the time of submission, cannot later make a business confidentiality claim.13 Nevertheless, other businesses identified or referenced in the same documents that were submitted to EPA by the submitting business may have a right to assert a CBI claim concerning information that pertains to them and may do so in response to this notice.

    13 However, businesses having submitted information to EPA relating to the export and import of RCRA universal waste are not subject to 40 CFR 260.2(b) since they submitted information in accordance with 40 CFR part 273, and not parts 260 through 266 and 268, as set forth in 40 CFR 260.2(b). They are therefore affected businesses that could make a claim of CBI at the time of submission or in response to this notice.

    In addition, EPA may develop its own documents and organize into its database systems information that was originally contained in documents from submitting businesses relating to exports and imports of hazardous waste. If a submitting business fails to assert a CBI claim for the documents it submits to EPA at the time of submission, not only does it waive its right to claim CBI for those documents, but it also waives its right to claim CBI for information in EPA's documents or databases that is based on or derived from the documents that were originally submitted by that business.14

    14 With the exception, noted above, of the submission of information relating to the export and import of RCRA universal waste.

    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.204(c) and (e), this notice inquires whether any affected business asserts a claim that any of the requested information constitutes CBI, and affords such business an opportunity to comment to EPA on the issue. This notice also informs affected businesses that, if a claim is made, EPA would determine under 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, whether any of the requested information is entitled to business confidential treatment.

    1. Affected Businesses

    EPA's FOIA regulations at 40 CFR 2.204(c)(1) require an EPA office that is responsible for responding to a FOIA request for the release of business information (“EPA office”) to determine which businesses, if any, are affected businesses. “Affected business” is defined at 40 CFR 2.201(d) as: With reference to an item of business information, a business which has asserted (and not waived or withdrawn) a business confidentiality claim covering the information, or a business which could be expected to make such a claim if it were aware that disclosure of the information to the public was proposed.

    2. The Purposes of This Notice

    This notice encompasses two distinct steps in the process of communication with affected businesses prior to EPA's making a final determination concerning the business confidentiality of the information at issue: The preliminary inquiry and the notice of opportunity to comment.

    a. Inquiry To Learn Whether Affected Businesses (Other Than Those Businesses That Previously Asserted a CBI Claim) Assert Claims Covering any of the Requested Information

    Section 2.204(c)(2)(i) provides, in relevant part: If the examination conducted under paragraph (c)(1) of § 2.204 discloses the existence of any business which, although it has not asserted a claim, might be expected to assert a claim if it knew EPA proposed to disclose the information, the EPA office shall contact a responsible official of each such business to learn whether the business asserts a claim covering the information.

    b. Notice of Opportunity To Submit Comments

    Sections 2.204(d)(1)(i) and 2.204(e)(1) of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations require that written notice be provided to businesses that have made claims of business confidentiality for any of the information at issue, stating that EPA is determining under 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, whether the information is entitled to business confidential treatment, and affording each business an opportunity to comment as to the reasons why it believes that the information deserves business confidential treatment.

    3. The Use of Publication in the Federal Register

    Section 2.204(e)(1) of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations requires that this type of notice be furnished by certified mail (return receipt requested), by personal delivery, or by other means which allows verification of the fact and date of receipt. EPA, however, has determined that in the present circumstances the use of a Federal Register notice is a practical and efficient way to contact affected businesses and to furnish the notice of opportunity to submit comments. The Agency's decision to follow this course was made in recognition of the administrative difficulty and impracticality of directly contacting potentially thousands of individual businesses.

    4. Submission of Your Response in the English Language

    All responses to this notice must be in the English language.

    5. The Effect of Failure To Respond to This Notice

    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.204(e)(1) and 2.205(d)(1), EPA will construe your failure to furnish timely comments in response to this notice as a waiver of your business's claim(s) of business confidentiality for any information in the types of documents identified in this notice.

    6. What To Include in Your Comments

    If you believe that any of the information contained in the types of documents which are described in this notice and which are currently, or may become, subject to FOIA requests, is entitled to business confidential treatment, please specify which portions of the information you consider business confidential. Information not specifically identified as subject to a business confidentiality claim may be disclosed to the requestor without further notice to you.

    For each item or class of information that you identify as being subject to your claim, please answer the following questions, giving as much detail as possible:

    1. For what period of time do you request that the information be maintained as business confidential, e.g., until a certain date, until the occurrence of a specified event, or permanently? If the occurrence of a specific event will eliminate the need for business confidentiality, please specify that event.

    2. Information submitted to EPA becomes stale over time. Why should the information you claim as business confidential be protected for the time period specified in your answer to question no. 1?

    3. What measures have you taken to protect the information claimed as business confidential? Have you disclosed the information to anyone other than a governmental body or someone who is bound by an agreement not to disclose the information further? If so, why should the information still be considered business confidential?

    4. Is the information contained in any publicly available material such as the Internet, publicly available data bases, promotional publications, annual reports, or articles? Is there any means by which a member of the public could obtain access to the information? Is the information of a kind that you would customarily not release to the public?

    5. Has any governmental body made a determination as to the business confidentiality of the information? If so, please attach a copy of the determination.

    6. For each category of information claimed as business confidential, explain with specificity why and how release of the information is likely to cause substantial harm to your competitive position. Explain the specific nature of those harmful effects, why they should be viewed as substantial, and the causal relationship between disclosure and such harmful effects. How could your competitors make use of this information to your detriment?

    7. Do you assert that the information is submitted on a voluntary or a mandatory basis? Please explain the reason for your assertion. If the business asserts that the information is voluntarily submitted information, please explain whether and why disclosure of the information would tend to lessen the availability to EPA of similar information in the future.

    8. Any other issue you deem relevant.

    Please note that you bear the burden of substantiating your business confidentiality claim. Conclusory allegations will be given little or no weight in the determination. If you wish to claim any of the information in your response as business confidential, you must mark the response “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” or with a similar designation, and must bracket all text so claimed. Information so designated will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed by, and by means of, the procedures set forth in, 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. If you fail to claim the information as business confidential, it may be made available to the requestor without further notice to you.

    III. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Please submit this information by mail to the address identified in the ADDRESSES section of today's notice for inclusion in the non-public CBI docket. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. In addition to the submission of one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.

    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

    • Identify the notice by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

    • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

    • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    Dated: April 1, 2015. Susan E. Bromm, Director, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08064 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0021; FRL-9924-20] Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Active Ingredients AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the File Symbol of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Mclain, Antimicrobials Division (AD) (7510P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected], Susan Lewis, Registration Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected] The mailing address for each contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the end of each application summary.

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

    1. File Symbol: 707-GEL. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1037. Applicant: Rohm and Hass Company, 100 Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Product name: Bioban 557 Antimicrobial. Active ingredient: 2-Methyl-1, 2-benzisothiazol-3 (2H)-one at 9%. Proposed classification/Use: ATD emulsion products, paints, building materials, adhesives and sealants, ink, textiles, paper coating, functional chemicals, household and I&I, oil process water and recovery system, metalworking fluids. Contact: AD.

    2. File Symbol: 4091-RL. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0921. Applicant: W.M. Barr & Company, Inc., 6750 Lenox Center Court, Suite 200, Memphis, TN 38115. Product name: FG0. Active ingredient: Antimicrobial, calcium chloride at 78%. Proposed classification/Use: Manufacturing use product. Contact: AD.

    3. File Symbol: 4091-RA. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0921. Applicant: W.M. Barr & Company, Inc., 6750 Lenox Center Court, Suite 200, Memphis, TN 38115. Product name: FG1. Active ingredient: Antimicrobial, calcium chloride at 77%. Proposed classification/Use: End-use product for use as a moisture absorber in enclosed spaces to retard growth mold, mildew, and bacteria. Contact: AD.

    4. File Symbol: 4091-RT. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0921. Applicant: W.M. Barr & Company, Inc., 6750 Lenox Center Court, Suite 200, Memphis, TN 38115. Product name: FG2. Active ingredient: Antimicrobial, calcium chloride at 73%. Proposed classification/Use: End-use product for use as a moisture absorber in enclosed spaces to retard growth mold, mildew, and bacteria. Contact: AD.

    5. File Symbol: 4091-RI. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0921. Applicant: W.M. Barr & Company, Inc., 6750 Lenox Center Court, Suite 200, Memphis, TN 38115. Product name: FG3. Active ingredient: Antimicrobial, calcium chloride at 58%. Proposed classification/Use: End-use product for use as a moisture absorber in enclosed spaces to retard growth mold, mildew, and bacteria. Contact: AD.

    6. File Symbol: 71512-ET. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0679. Applicant: ISK Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord, OH 44077. Product name: Technical Cyclaniliprole Insecticide. Active ingredient: Insecticide Cyclaniliprole at 96.4%. Proposed classification/Use: Pome fruit (Crop Group 11-11), tree nuts (Crop Group 14-12), stone fruit (Crop Group 12-12), fruiting vegetables (Crop Group 8-10), cucurbit vegetables (Crop Group 9), small fruit vine climbing Crop Subgroup including grapes (Crop Subgroup 13-07F), proposed Crop Subgroup 4-14A; leafy green subgroup, proposed Crop Subgroup 4-14B; brassica leafy greens subgroup, proposed Crop Subgroup 22B; leaf petiole vegetable subgroup, proposed Crop Group 5-14; brassica head and stem vegetables, and import tolerance for tea. Contact: RD.

    7. File Symbol: 71512-EA. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0679. Applicant: ISK Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord, OH 44077. Product names: Cyclaniliprole 50 SL Insecticide. Active ingredient: Insecticide Cyclaniliprole at 4.55%. Proposed classification/Use: Pome fruit (Crop Group 11-11), tree nuts (Crop Group 14-12), stone fruit (Crop Group 12-12), fruiting vegetables (Crop Group 8-10), cucurbit vegetables (Crop Group 9), small fruit vine climbing Crop Subgroup including grapes (Crop Subgroup 13-07F), proposed Crop Subgroup 4-14A; leafy green subgroup, proposed Crop Subgroup 4-14B; brassica leafy greens subgroup, proposed Crop Subgroup 22B; leaf petiole vegetable subgroup, proposed Crop Group 5-14; brassica head and stem vegetables, and import tolerance for tea. Contact: RD.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: April 1, 2015. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08211 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9925-98-OA] Announcement of the Board of Directors for the National Environmental Education Foundation AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency; Office of External Affairs and Environmental Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Environmental Education and Training Foundation (doing business as The National Environmental Education Foundation or NEEF) was created by Section 10 of Public Law 101-619, the National Environmental Education Act of 1990. It is a private 501(c)(3) non-profit organization established to promote and support education and training as necessary tools to further environmental protection and sustainable, environmentally sound development. It provides the common ground upon which leaders from business and industry, all levels of government, public interest groups, and others can work cooperatively to expand the reach of environmental education and training programs beyond the traditional classroom. The Foundation promotes innovative environmental education and training programs such as environmental education for medical healthcare providers and broadcast meteorologists; it also develops partnerships with government and other organizations to administer projects that promote the development of an environmentally literal public. The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as required by the terms of the Act, announces the following appointment to the National Environmental Education Foundation Board of Directors. The appointee is Ms. Jeniffer Harper-Taylor, president of the Siemens Foundation, where she leads one of the nation's preeminent nonprofit organizations dedicated to STEM education.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information regarding this Notice of Appointment, please contact Mr. Brian Bond, Senior Advisor to the Administrator for Public Engagement, U.S. EPA 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. General information concerning NEEF can be found on their Web site at: http://www.neefusa.org.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Additional Considerations: Great care has been taken to assure that this new appointee not only has the highest degree of expertise and commitment, but also brings to the Board diverse points of view relating to environmental education. This appointment is a four-year term which may be renewed once for an additional four years pending successful re-election by the NEEF nominating committee.

    This appointee will join the current Board members which include:

    • Decker Anstrom (NEEF Chairman) Former U.S. Ambassador, Retired Chairman, The Weather Channel Companies.

    • Diane Wood (NEEF Secretary) President, National Environmental Education Foundation.

    • Carlos Alcazar, Founder and Chairman, Culture ONE World.

    • Megan Reilly Cayten, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Catrinka, LLC.

    • David M. Kiser, Vice President, Environment, Health, Safety and Sustainability, International Paper.

    • Wonya Lucas, President, Lucas Strategic Consulting.

    • Shannon Schuyler, Principal, Corporate Responsibility Leader, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).

    • Jacqueline M. Thomas, Vice President of Corporate Responsibility, Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc.

    • Raul Perea-Henze, MD, MPH, Managing Director, HORUS Advisors, Washington, DC.

    • George Basile, Ph.D., Professor, School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.

    Background: Section 10(a) of the National Environmental Education Act of 1990 mandates a National Environmental Education Foundation. The Foundation is established in order to extend the contribution of environmental education and training to meeting critical environmental protection needs, both in this country and internationally; to facilitate the cooperation, coordination, and contribution of public and private resources to create an environmentally advanced educational system; and to foster an open and effective partnership among Federal, State, and local government, business, industry, academic institutions, community based environmental groups, and international organizations.

    The Foundation is a charitable and nonprofit corporation whose income is exempt from tax, and donations to which are tax deductible to the same extent as those organizations listed pursuant to section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The Foundation is not an agency or establishment of the United States. The purposes of the Foundation are—

    (A) subject to the limitation contained in the final sentence of subsection (d) herein, to encourage, accept, leverage, and administer private gifts for the benefit of, or in connection with, the environmental education and training activities and services of the United States Environmental Protection Agency;

    (B) to conduct such other environmental education activities as will further the development of an environmentally conscious and responsible public, a well-trained and environmentally literate workforce, and an environmentally advanced educational system;

    (C) to participate with foreign entities and individuals in the conduct and coordination of activities that will further opportunities for environmental education and training to address environmental issues and problems involving the United States and Canada or Mexico.

    The Foundation develops, supports, and/or operates programs and projects to educate and train educational and environmental professionals, and to assist them in the development and delivery of environmental education and training programs and studies.

    The Foundation has a governing Board of Directors (hereafter referred to in this section as `the Board'), which consists of 13 directors, each of whom shall be knowledgeable or experienced in the environment, education and/or training. The Board oversees the activities of the Foundation and assures that the activities of the Foundation are consistent with the environmental and education goals and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency and with the intents and purposes of the Act. The membership of the Board, to the extent practicable, represents diverse points of view relating to environmental education and training. Members of the Board are appointed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

    Within 90 days of the date of the enactment of the National Environmental Education Act, and as appropriate thereafter, the Administrator will publish in the Federal Register an announcement of appointments of Directors of the Board. Such appointments become final and effective 90 days after publication in the Federal Register. The directors are appointed for terms of 4 years. The Administrator shall appoint an individual to serve as a director in the event of a vacancy on the Board within 60 days of said vacancy in the manner in which the original appointment was made. No individual may serve more than 2 consecutive terms as a director.

    Dated: April 2, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator. Jeniffer Harper-Taylor

    As President of the Siemens Foundation, Ms. Harper-Taylor leads one of the nation's preeminent nonprofit organizations dedicated to STEM education. During more than a decade of service she has impacted students, teachers and schools on a national scale, introducing tens of thousands of young people to opportunities in STEM. Today she oversees an annual investment of more than $7 million in innovative education programs that support, recognize and encourage the scientists and engineers of tomorrow.

    Ms. Harper-Taylor joined Siemens in 1999 as a university recruitment manager. She then joined the Siemens Foundation as Program Manager in March 2000, subsequently serving as Program Director and Vice President before being named President in March 2010. Throughout her tenure she has spearheaded partnerships with such education leaders as the College Board, Discovery Education, the National Science Teachers Association and Oak Ridge Associated Universities to broaden the reach and impact of the Foundation's programs.

    Ms. Harper-Taylor is a charter member of the Advisory Board for the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) Office for Access and the Advancement of Public Black Universities. She also serves on The Conference Board's Contributions Council, a group dedicated to advancing the practice of corporate philanthropy. Previously, she served as the Diversity Council Chairperson for Siemens Corporation, USA.

    Born and raised in Atlanta, Georgia, Ms. Harper-Taylor has played an active role in various community organizations in her hometown, including the Atlanta chapter of Big Brothers and Big Sisters and membership in the NAACP and Urban League. She takes pride in the legacy of Historically Black Colleges and Universities as a graduate of Southern University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where she earned her Bachelor's degree.

    [FR Doc. 2015-08214 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the FTC is seeking public comments on its request to OMB to extend for three years the current PRA clearances for information collection requirements contained in the rules and regulations under the Fur Products Labeling Act (“Fur Rules”), 16 CFR 301. This clearance expires on April 30, 2015.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by May 11, 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 “Fur Rules: FTC File No. P074201” on your comment, and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/furrulespra2 by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, mail or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for copies of the collection of information and supporting documentation should be addressed to Robert M. Frisby, 202-326-2098, or Lemuel Dowdy, 202-326-2981, Attorneys, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Room CC-9528, Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Rules and Regulations under the Fur Products Labeling Act (“Fur Rules”), 16 CFR part 301.

    OMB Control Number: 3084-0099.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Abstract: The Fur Products Labeling Act (“Fur Act”) 1 prohibits the misbranding and false advertising of fur products. The Fur Rules establish disclosure requirements that assist consumers in making informed purchasing decisions, and recordkeeping requirements that assist the Commission in enforcing the Rules. The Rules also provide a procedure for exemption from certain disclosure provisions under the Fur Act.

    1 15 U.S.C. 69 et seq.

    On January 27, 2015, the Commission sought comment on the information collection requirements in the Fur Rules. 80 FR 4264. No comments were received. As required by OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment.

    Likely Respondents: Retailers, manufacturers, processors, and importers of furs and fur products.

    Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure; recordkeeping requirement.

    Estimated Annual Hours Burden: 249,541 hours (64,440 hours for recordkeeping + 185,101 hours for disclosure).

    Recordkeeping: 64,440 hours [1,230 retailers incur an average recordkeeping burden of about 18 hours per year (22,140 hours total); 90 manufacturers incur an average recordkeeping burden of about 60 hours per year (5,400 hours total); and 1,230 importers of furs and fur products incur an average recordkeeping burden of 30 hours per year (36,900 hours total)]

    Disclosure: 185,101 hours [(107,585 hours for labeling + 28,316 hours for invoices + 49,200 hours for advertising).]

    Estimated annual cost burden: $4,658,000, rounded to the nearest thousand (solely relating to labor costs).

    Request for Comments

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before May 11, 2015. Write “Fur Rules: FTC File No. P074201” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

    Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, such as anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is . . . privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you are required to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comment online, or to send it to the Commission by courier or overnight service. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/furrulespra2, by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

    If you file your comment on paper, write “Fur Rules: FTC File No. P074201” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before May 11, 2015. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm.

    Comments on the information collection requirements subject to review under the PRA should also be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, address comments to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail, however, are subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. Thus, comments instead should be sent by facsimile to (202) 395-5167.

    David C. Shonka, Principal Deputy General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08151 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-15-15IG] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review; Withdrawal AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    Due to an information collection request oversight, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) requests immediate publication withdrawal of the 30-Day Federal Register Notice (FRN) entitled “Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review” concerning the Public Health Associate Program (PHAP) Alumni Assessment.

    DATES:

    The 30-day FRN published on March 25, 2015 at 80 FR 15791 is withdrawn as of April 9, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information call (404) 639-7570 or mail comments to CDC, Leroy A. Richardson, 1600 Clifton Road, MS D-74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to [email protected]

    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08139 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001] Food and Drug Administration Science Forum 2015; Public Workshop AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public workshop.

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public workshop entitled “FDA Science Forum 2015.” The purpose of the public workshop is to highlight science conducted at the FDA by showcasing how scientific research informs regulatory decision making and to provide a forum for developing collaborations within FDA and with external organizations. The focus of the forum will be the eight FDA Regulatory Science priority areas(http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RegulatoryScience/ucm267719.htm).

    Date and Time: The public workshop will be held on May 27, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:45 p.m. and May 28, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.

    Location: The public workshop will be held at FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public workshop participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.

    Contact Person: Leslie Wheelock, Office of Scientific Professional Development, Office of the Chief Scientist, Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4345, Silver Spring, MD, 301-796-4580, FAX: 301-847-8106, email: [email protected]

    Registration: Submit your online registration information (including name, title, firm name, address, telephone and email) by May 15, 2015 at: http://www.fda.gov/scienceresearch/aboutscienceresearchatfda/ucm429403.htm.

    There is no registration fee for the public workshop. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited. There will be no onsite registration.

    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Leslie Wheelock (see Contact Person) at least 7 days in advance.

    Webcast: Please be advised that as soon as possible after the Forum, a webcast and report of the public workshop will be accessible at: http://www.fda.gov/scienceresearch/aboutscienceresearchatfda/ucm429403.htm.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Each session of the FDA Science Forum will have an expert in the area and presentations by FDA staff.

    Dated: April 3, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08156 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c) (4) and 552b(c) (6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications/contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Outstanding Investigator Award 1.

    Date: April 29, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Cancer Institute, Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 6W030, Rockville, MD 20850, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Michael B. Small, Ph.D., Chief, Program and Review Extramural Staff Training Office, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W522, Bethesda, MD 20892, 240-276-6438, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Targeted Radionuclide Therapy.

    Date: May 4, 2015.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Cancer Institute, Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W030, Rockville, MD 20850, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Thomas M. Vollberg, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Technology and Contract Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W102, Rockville, MD 20850, 240-276-6341, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NCI R01 Review.

    Date: May 21, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Cancer Institute, Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W126, Rockville, MD 20850, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Caron A. Lyman, Ph.D., Chief, Scientific Review Officer, Research Programs Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W126, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6348, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NCI SPORE Review.

    Date: June 8-9, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Caterina Bianco, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Program Review Branch, Division Of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W116, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6459, [email protected].

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/sep/sep.htm, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 3, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08131 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Synapses and Circuit Plasticity.

    Date: April 23, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Linda MacArthur, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4187, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-537-9986, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Risk, Prevention and Health Behavior AREA Review.

    Date: May 5, 2015.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: John H Newman, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3222, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-0628, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel RFA RM13-006: Pioneer Awards.

    Date: May 6-8, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: James W Mack, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4154, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2037, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 3, 2015. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08133 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Eye Institute; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Eye Council.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    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 Advisory Eye Council.

    Date: June 4, 2015.

    Open: 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: Following opening remarks by the Director, NEI, there will be presentations by the staff of the Institute and discussions concerning Institute programs.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Terrace Level Conference Rooms, 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Closed: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Terrace Level Conference Rooms, 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Anne E Schaffner, Ph.D., Chief, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, MSC 9300, Bethesda, MD 20892-9300, (301) 451-2020, [email protected]

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: www.nei.nih.gov, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 3, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08129 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Loan Repayment 2015.

    Date: May 4, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Bita Nakhai, Ph.D., Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Bldg., 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, Md 20814, 301-402-7701, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; UNITING THE PHYSIOLOGY OF AGING BY MEANS OF INNOVATIVE TOOLS.

    Date: May 13, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Bita Nakhai, Ph.D., Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Bldg., 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, Md 20814, 301-402-7701, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 3, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08132 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request: United States and Global Human Influenza Surveillance in at-Risk Settings SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH), will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.

    Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited on one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, 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 those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    To Submit Comments and for Further Information:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact Dr. Diane Post, Program Officer, Respiratory Diseases Branch, NIAID, NIH 5601 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD or call non-toll-free number at 240-627-3348 or email your request, including your address to: [email protected].

    DATES:

    Comment Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.

    Proposed Collection: United States and Global Human Influenza Surveillance in at-Risk Settings, 0925-NEW, National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: These studies will identify individuals with or at risk for influenza through focused surveillance in at-risk settings within the United States and internationally, rapidly identify circulating influenza strains to identify those with pandemic potential and create an invaluable bank of human samples from influenza patients to allow the characterization of the determinants of influenza transmission to and among humans, the immune response to influenza, and the basis of severe disease—critical knowledge gaps impacting effectiveness of decision-making around patient care and pandemic preparedness. These studies will provide insight into viral and host determinants that may be contributing to the transmission of influenza, immune response to influenza, and severity of influenza and associated morbidity and mortality.

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours for the entire 3 year request are 1,500.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    Patients 500 2 30/60 500
    Dated: April 3, 2015. Dione Washington, Project Clearance Liaison, NIAID, NIH.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08149 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute Amended; Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, April 30, 2015 08:00 a.m. to April 30, 2015, 06:00 p.m., Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 which was published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2015, 80 FR 13012.

    The meeting notice is amended to change the meeting title from NCI Omnibus R03 & R21 SEP-12 to Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant Program-Omnibus SEP-12. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: April 3, 2015. Melanie J. Gray-Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08130 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2015-0006] Notice of Public Meeting on the Proposed Revised Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, as Revised Through the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice is to announce a public meeting to solicit public input on the proposed “Revised Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management.”

    DATES:

    The public meeting will be held in Seattle, WA on April 14, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. Pacific Time (PT) to 3:30 p.m. PT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public meeting will be held in Seattle, WA, at the University of Washington Medicine at South Lake Union, Administrative Building C, Orin Smith Auditorium, 850 Republican Street, Seattle, WA 98109.

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by April 10.

    Due to space constraints of the facility, seating will be limited to 100 participants for the meeting. To reserve a seat in advance for this meeting, please provide a request via email or mail with the contact information of the participant (including name, mailing address, and email address), the meeting(s) to be attended, and include the subject/attention line (or on the envelope if by mail): Reservation Request for FFRMS Meeting. Advance reservations are preferred three (3) business days prior to the meeting to ensure processing, but will be accepted until seating capacity is reached. Unregistered participants will be accepted after all participants with reservations have been accommodated and will be admitted on a first-come, first-serve basis, provided the person capacity is not exceeded. To submit reservations, please email: [email protected] or send by mail to the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT caption.

    To facilitate public participation, members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered at the public meeting. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief Counsel, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-3100.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the docket ID FEMA-2015-0006. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and search for the Docket ID FEMA-2015-0006.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bradley Garner, 202-646-3901 or [email protected] Mailing Address: FFRMS, 1800 South Bell Street, Room 627, Arlington, VA 20598-3030. The Web site is https://www.fema.gov/federal-flood-risk-management-standard-ffrms.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On January 30, 2015, the President signed Executive Order 13690, directing FEMA, on behalf of the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group, to publish for public comment draft revised Floodplain Management Guidelines to provide guidance to agencies on the implementation of Executive Order 11988, as amended, consistent with a new Federal Flood Risk Management Standard. These draft revised Guidelines were developed by the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group in consultation with the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. FEMA is publishing this Notice on behalf of the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group, which is chaired by FEMA, to solicit and consider public input on the draft revised Guidelines at a public meeting.

    Background information about these topics is available on the FFRMS Web site at https://www.fema.gov/federal-flood-risk-management-standard-ffrms or in the docket for this Notice at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID FEMA-2015-0006.

    The meeting is exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group is an intergovernmental committee and falls under the intergovernmental committee exception to FACA, 41 CFR 102-3.40(g).

    Authority:

    Executive Order 11988, as amended; Executive Order 13690.

    Dated: April 3, 2015. Roy Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08102 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-47-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLMTB07900 15XL1109AF L10100000 PH0000 LXSIANMS0000 MO# 4500078170] Notice of Public Meeting; Western Montana Resource Advisory Council AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Public Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Western Montana Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.

    DATES:

    The Western Montana Resource Advisory Council meeting will be held May 19, 2015 in Missoula, Montana. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. with a 30-minute public comment period starting at 11:30 a.m. and will adjourn at 3:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    BLM's Missoula Field Office, 3255 Fort Missoula Road, Missoula, MT.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Abrams, Western Montana Resource Advisory Council Coordinator, Butte Field Office, 106 North Parkmont, Butte, MT 59701, 406-533-7617, [email protected]. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This 15-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior through the BLM on a variety of management issues associated with public land management in Montana. During this meeting the council will discuss several topics, including an update on the BLM's Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy, a report from the RAC's Timber Harvest Subgroup, and reports from the BLM's Butte, Missoula and Dillon field offices. All RAC meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the RAC. Each formal RAC meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited.

    Authority:

    43 CFR 1784.4-2.

    Richard M. Hotaling, District Manager, Western Montana District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08141 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-DN-P
    DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-NRSS-EQD-SSB-17987; PPWONRADI1, PPMRSNR1Y.AM0000] Proposed Information Collection: Use of iNaturalist by the National Park Service To Record Natural History Observations AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (National Park Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a new information collection (IC) that will be used by the public to collect and record natural history observations at selected NPS parks and sponsored events. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    To ensure that your comments on this IC are considered, we must receive them on or before June 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments on this IC to Phadrea Ponds, Information Collection Coordinator, National Park Service, 1201 Oakridge Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 (mail); or [email protected] (email). Please reference Information Collection 1024-iNAT in the subject line.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Margaret Beer, National Park Service Inventory and Monitoring Division, 1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150, Fort Collins, CO 80525 (mail); [email protected] (email); or: 970-267-2168 (phone).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The NPS is in the process of developing a partnership with the California Academy of Sciences to use its iNaturalist web-based and mobile applications to digitally record natural history observations during selected NPS parks and sponsored events. This information will be recorded by park visitor participants to help verify and substantiate the presence of wildlife and plant species in over 300 NPS units. Because the parks have no formal mechanism for visitors to contribute natural history observations to our current listings, we are requesting to use iNaturalist as a platform to submit observations that can be used by NPS.

    II. Data

    OMB Number: None. This is a new collection.

    Title: Use of iNaturalist by the National Park Service to Record Natural History Observations.

    Type of Request: New.

    Affected Public: General public, individual households, and non-federal scientists.

    Respondent Obligation: Voluntary.

    Frequency of Collection: One-time.

    Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 2,500 (2,000 public and 500 non-federal scientists).

    Annual Burden Hours: We estimate the total annual burden for this collection will be 2,083 hours (50 minutes per respondent).

    Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: We have not identified any “non-hour cost” burdens associated with this collection of information.

    III. Request for Comments

    We 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. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: April 2, 2015. Madonna L. Baucum, Information Collection Clearance Officer, National Park Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08146 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-EH-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-1046 (Second Review)] Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China: Determination

    On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

    1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).

    Background

    The Commission instituted this review on November 3, 2014 (79 FR 65241) and determined on February 6, 2015 that it would conduct an expedited review (80 FR 10162, February 25, 2015).

    The Commission completed and filed its determination in this review on April 6, 2015. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4524 (April 2015), entitled Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1046 (Second Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08161 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    National Endowment for the Humanities.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval as required by the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments on this information collection must be submitted on or before May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Mail comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the National Endowment for the Humanities, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503; (202) 395-7316.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Joel Schwartz, Chief Guidelines Officer, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20506; (202) 606-8473; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is particularly interested in comments which: (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 submissions of responses.

    Agency: National Endowment for the Humanities.

    Title of Proposal: Generic Clearance Authority for the National Endowment for the Humanities.

    OMB Number: 3136-0134.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Applicants to NEH grant programs, reviewers of NEH grant applications, and NEH grantees.

    Total Respondents: 7,074

    Average Time per Response: varied according to type of information collection.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 67,105 hours.

    Total Annualized capital/startup costs: 0.

    Total annual costs (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing services): 0.

    Description: This submission requests approval from OMB for a three year extension of NEH's currently approved generic clearance authority for all NEH information collections other than one-time evaluations, questionnaires and surveys. Generic clearance authority would include approval of forms and instructions for application to NEH grant programs, reporting forms for NEH grantees, panelists and reviewers and for program evaluation purposes.

    Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling Joel Schwartz at (202-606-8473) or may be requested by email to [email protected]

    Dated: April 3, 2015. Margaret F. Plympton, Deputy Chairman.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08105 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7536-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304; NRC-2015-0087] Zion Solutions, LLC; Zion Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact regarding exemptions from specific emergency planning requirements for license nos. DPR-39 and DPR-48, issued to ZionSolutions, LLC, for the Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2.

    DATES:

    The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact referenced in this document is available on April 9, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0087 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0087. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    • NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced.

    • NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Hickman, Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-00001. Telephone: 301-415-3017; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Introduction

    The NRC is considering issuance of exemptions from specific emergency planning (EP) requirements of part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) for license nos. DPR-39 and DPR-48, issued to ZionSolutions, LLC (ZS, the licensee), for the Zion Nuclear Power Station (ZNPS), Units 1 and 2. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC performed an environmental assessment. Based on the results of the environmental assessment that follows, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the exemptions, and is issuing a finding of no significant impact.

    On November 23, 2011, the NRC issued a Final Rule modifying or adding EP requirements in § 50.47, § 50.54, and appendix E of 10 CFR part 50 (76 Federal Register (FR) 72560). The EP Final Rule was effective on December 23, 2011, with specific implementation dates for each of the rule changes, varying from the effective date of the Final Rule through December 31, 2015. The EP Final Rule codified certain voluntary protective measures contained in NRC Bulletin 2005-02, “Emergency Preparedness and Response Actions for Security-Based Events,” and generically applicable requirements similar to those previously imposed by NRC Order EA-02-026, “Order for Interim Safeguards and Security Compensatory Measures,” dated February 25, 2002. In addition, the EP Final Rule amended other licensee emergency plan requirements to: (1) Enhance the ability of licensees in preparing and in taking certain protective actions in the event of a radiological emergency; (2) address, in part, security issues identified after the terrorist events of September 11, 2001; (3) clarify regulations to effect consistent emergency plan implementation among licensees; and (4) modify certain EP requirements to be more effective and efficient. However, the EP Final Rule was only an enhancement to the NRC's regulations and was not necessary for adequate protection. On page 72563 of the Federal Register notice for the EP Final Rule, the Commission “determined that the existing regulatory structure ensures adequate protection of public health and safety and common defense and security.”

    II. Environmental Assessment Description of Proposed Action

    The proposed action would exempt ZNPS, a 10 CFR part 50 licensee, from certain 10 CFR part 50 EP requirements because ZNPS is a permanently shut-down nuclear facility.

    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated June 20, 2012, (ADAMS Accession No. ML12173A316).

    Need for Proposed Action

    ZNPS was shut down on February 21, 1997, and is currently in a permanently shut-down and defueled condition. In a letter dated May 4, 1998, the NRC acknowledged that pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the 10 CFR part 50 licenses for ZNPS, Units 1 and 2 no longer authorize operation of the reactors, or emplacement or retention of fuel in the reactor vessels. Active decommissioning is currently underway.

    The licensee claims that the proposed action is needed because the Final Rule imposed requirements on ZNPS that are not necessary to meet the underlying purpose of the regulations in view of the greatly reduced offsite radiological consequences associated with the current plant status as permanently shut down. The EP program at this facility met the EP requirements in 10 CFR part 50 that were in effect before December 23, 2011, subject to any license amendments or exemptions modifying the EP requirements for the licensee. Thus, compliance with the EP requirements in effect before the effective date of the EP Final Rule demonstrated reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures could be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.

    Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC staff evaluated the environmental impacts of the proposed action and concludes that exempting the facility from the emergency planning requirements will not have any adverse environmental impacts. With respect to radiological impacts, the NRC has determined that no credible events at ZNPS would result in doses to the public beyond the owner controlled area boundary that would exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Protective Actions Guides at the site boundary. The proposed action is wholly procedural and administrative in nature. As such, the proposed action will not: Significantly increase the probability or consequences of radiological accidents, result in any changes to the types of effluents that may be released offsite, and result in any significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does not involve any construction activities, renovation of buildings or structures, ground disturbing activities or other alteration to land. The proposed action will not change the site activities and therefore will not result in any changes to the workforce or vehicular traffic. Furthermore, the proposed action is not a type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties or cultural resources, including traditional cultural properties. In addition the proposed action will not result in any change to non-radiological plant effluents and thus, will have no impact on either air or water quality. As the proposed action is wholly procedural and administrative in nature, the NRC staff has determined that the proposed action will have no effect on listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

    Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

    Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the “no-action” alternative). Denial of the exemption request would result in no change in current environmental impacts because there will be no construction or major renovation of any buildings or structures, nor any associated ground disturbing activities. Thus the environmental impacts of the proposed action and no-action alternative are similar. Therefore, the no-action alternative is not further considered.

    Conclusion

    The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, and that the proposed action is the preferred alternative.

    Agencies and Persons Consulted

    The NRC contacted the Illinois Emergency Management Agency concerning this request. There were no comments, concerns or objections from the State official.

    III. Finding of No Significant Impact

    The NRC staff has prepared this EA as part of its review of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.32(a)(4), this FONSI incorporates the EA set forth in this notice by reference.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of March 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Larry W. Camper, Director, Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08169 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Privacy Act of 1974; Computer Matching Program AGENCY:

    Office of Personnel Management.

    ACTION:

    Notice—computer matching between the Office of Personnel Management and the Social Security Administration (Computer Matching Agreement 1018).

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-503), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines on the Conduct of Matching Programs (54 FR 25818 published June 19, 1989), and OMB Circular No. A-130, revised November 28, 2000, “Management of Federal Information Resources,” the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is publishing notice of its new computer matching program with the Social Security Administration (SSA).

    DATES:

    OPM will file a report of the subject matching program with the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The matching program will begin May 11, 2015 or 40 days after the date of OPM's submission of the letters to Congress and OMB, whichever is later. The matching program will continue for 18 months from the beginning date and may be extended an additional 12 months thereafter. Subsequent matches will run until one of the parties advises the other in writing of its intention to reevaluate, modify and/or terminate the agreement.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to Deon Mason, Chief, Business Services, Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management, Room 3316-G, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bernard A. Wells III on 202-606-2730

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. General

    The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, establishes the conditions under which computer matching involving the Federal government could be performed and adding certain protections for individuals applying for and receiving Federal benefits. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protections for such individuals.

    The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records in a system of records are matched with other Federal, State, or local government records. Among other things, it requires Federal agencies involved in computer matching programs to:

    (1) Negotiate written agreements with the other agency for agencies participating in the matching programs;

    (2) Obtain the approval of the match agreement by the Data Integrity Boards (DIB) of the participating Federal agencies;

    (3) Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;

    (4) Notify applicants and beneficiaries that their records are subject to matching;

    (5) Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, termination or denying an individual's benefits or payments.

    B. OPM Computer Matches Subject to the Privacy Act

    We have taken action to ensure that all of OPM's computer matching programs comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act, as amended.

    Notice of Computer Matching Program, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) With the Social Security Administration (SSA). A. Participating Agencies

    OPM and SSA.

    B. Purpose of the Matching Program

    The purpose of this agreement is to establish the conditions under which SSA agrees to disclose tax return and/or Social Security benefit information to OPM. The SSA records will be used in redetermining and recomputing the benefits of certain annuitants and survivors whose computations are based, in part, on military service performed after December 1956 under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and certain annuitants and survivors whose annuity computation under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) have a CSRS component.

    C. Authority for Conducting the Matching Program

    Chapters 83 and 84 of title 5 of the United States Code provide the basis for computing annuities under CSRS and FERS, respectively, and require release of information by SSA to OPM in order to administer data exchanges involving military service performed by an individual after December 31, 1956. The CSRS requirement is codified at section 8332(j) of title 5 of the United States Code; the FERS requirement is codified at section 8422(e)(4) of title 5 of the United States Code. The responsibilities of SSA and OPM with respect to information obtained pursuant to this agreement are also in accordance with the following: the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended; section 307 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-253), codified at section 8332 Note of title 5 of the United States Code; section 1306(a) of title 42 of the United States Code; and section 6103(1)(11) of title 26 of the United States Code.

    D. Categories of Records and Individuals Covered by the Match

    SSA will disclose data from its MBR file (60-0090, Master Beneficiary Record, SSA/OEEAS) and MEF file (60-0059, Earnings Recording and Self-Employment Income System, SSA/OEEAS) and manually-extracted military wage information from SSA's “1086” microfilm file when required (71 FR 1796, January 11, 2006). OPM will provide SSA with an electronic finder file from the OPM system of records published as OPM/Central-1 (Civil Service Retirement and Insurance Records) on October 8, 1999 (64 FR 54930), as amended on March 20, 2008 (73 FR 15013). The system of records involved have routine uses permitting the disclosures needed to conduct this match.

    E. Privacy Safeguards and Security

    The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(o)(1)(G)) requires that each matching agreement specify procedures for ensuring the administrative, technical and physical security of the records matched and the results of such programs.

    All Federal agencies are subject to: The Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA) (44 U.S.C. 3541 et seq.); related OMB circulars and memorandum (e.g., OMB Circular A-130 and OMB M-06-16); National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) directives; and the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). These laws, circulars, memoranda directives and regulations include requirements for safeguarding Federal information systems and personally identifiable information used in Federal agency business processes, as well as related reporting requirements. OPM and SSA recognize that all laws, circulars, memoranda, directives and regulations relating to the subject of this agreement and published subsequent to the effective date of this agreement must also be implemented if mandated.

    FISMA requirements apply to all Federal contractors and organizations or sources that possess or use Federal information, or that operate, use, or have access to Federal information systems on behalf of an agency. OPM will be responsible for oversight and compliance of their contractors and agents. Both OPM and SSA reserve the right to conduct onsite inspection to monitor compliance with FISMA regulations.

    F. Inclusive Dates of the Match

    The matching program shall become effective upon the signing of the agreement by both parties to the agreement and approval of the agreement by the Data Integrity Boards of the respective agencies, but no sooner than 40 days after notice of this matching program is sent to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget or 30 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register, whichever is later. The matching program will continue for 18 months from the effective date and may be extended for an additional 12 months thereafter, if certain conditions are met.

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Katherine Archuleta, Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08097 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-38-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors; Sunshine Act Meeting DATES AND TIMES:

    March 24, 2015, at 4 p.m.

    PLACE:

    Washington, DC, via Teleconference.

    STATUS:

    Committee Votes to Close March 24, 2015, Meeting: By telephone vote on March 24, 2015, members of the Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service met and voted unanimously to close to public observation its meeting held in Washington, DC, via teleconference. The Committee determined that no earlier public notice was possible.

    MATTERS CONSIDERED:

    Tuesday, March 24, 2015, at 4 p.m.

    1. Strategic Issues.

    2. Financial Matters.

    3. Pricing.

    GENERAL COUNSEL CERTIFICATION:

    The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that the meeting was properly closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Requests for information about the meeting should be addressed to the Secretary of the Board, Julie S. Moore, at 202-268-4800.

    Julie S. Moore, Secretary, Board of Governors.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08242 Filed 4-7-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors; Sunshine Act Meeting DATES AND TIMES:

    March 27, 2015, at 3 p.m.

    PLACE:

    Washington DC, via Teleconference.

    STATUS:

    Committee Votes to Close March 27, 2015, Meeting: By telephone vote on March 27, 2015, members of the Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service met and voted unanimously to close to public observation its meeting held in Washington, DC, via teleconference. The Committee determined that no earlier public notice was possible.

    MATTERS CONSIDERED:

    Friday, March 27, 2015, at 3 p.m.

    1. Strategic Issues.

    2. Financial Matters.

    3. Pricing.

    GENERAL COUNSEL CERTIFICATION:

    The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that the meeting was properly closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Requests for information about the meeting should be addressed to the Secretary of the Board, Julie S. Moore, at 202-268-4800.

    Julie S. Moore, Secretary, Board of Governors.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08241 Filed 4-7-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 500-1] In the Matter of Chatter Box Call Center Ltd., Euro Group of Companies, Inc., and Golden Century Resources Limited; Order of Suspension of Trading April 7, 2015.

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Chatter Box Call Center Ltd. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended December 31, 2011.

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Euro Group of Companies, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2011.

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Golden Century Resources Limited because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2012.

    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on April 7, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on April 20, 2015.

    By the Commission.

    Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08260 Filed 4-7-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74642; File No. SR-NYSE-2014-59] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, Amending Rule 13 and Related Rules Governing Order Types and Modifiers April 3, 2015.

    On November 14, 2014, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rule 13 and other Exchange rules governing order types and order modifiers. The proposed rule change was published in the Federal Register on December 4, 2014.3 On December 22, 2014, the Exchange submitted Partial Amendment No. 1 to the Commission.4 On January 14, 2015, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,5 the Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.6 On February 26, 2014, the Exchange withdrew the proposal SR-NYSE-2014-59.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73703 (December 4, 2014), 79 FR 72039.

    4 The Exchange also submitted a copy of the amendment to the public comment file. See letter from Martha Redding, Chief Counsel, New York Stock Exchange, to Kevin M. O'Neill, Deputy Secretary, Commission, dated December 22, 2014.

    5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    6See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74051, 80 FR 2983 (Jan. 21, 2015). The Commission designated March 4, 2015, as the date by which it should approve, disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.

    7 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.7

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08107 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 500-1] In the Matter of China Education International, Inc., Delta Entertainment Group Inc., and Gulf United Energy, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading April 7, 2015.

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of China Education International, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2012.

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Delta Entertainment Group Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2012.

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Gulf United Energy, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2012.

    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on April 7, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on April 20, 2015.

    By the Commission.

    Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08259 Filed 4-7-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74645; File No. SR-BYX-2015-20] Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4.3, Record of Written Complaints April 3, 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 26, 2015, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BYX”) 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 this proposal as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,4 which renders it 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).

    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 proposes to amend Rule 4.3, Record of Written Complaints. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.

    Rule 4.3. Record of Written Complaints

    (a) Each Member shall keep and preserve for a period of not less than [five]four years a file of all written complaints of customers and action taken by the Member in respect thereof, if any. Further, for the first two years of the [five]four-year period, the Member shall keep such file in a place readily accessible to examination or spot checks.

    (b) (No change).

    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 II.A., II.B., and II.C. below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    (A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 4.3, Record of Written Complaints, to conform with the rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) for purposes of an agreement between the Exchange and FINRA, as well as to conform Exchange Rule 4.3 with the rules of the EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”) and the EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”).5

    5See EDGA and EDGX Rules 4.3. See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70715 (October 15, 2013), 78 FR 64041 (October 18, 2013) (SR-EDGA-2013-31) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend EDGA Rule 4.3, Record of Written Complains, to Conform with Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. Rule 4513); and 70714 (October 15, 2013), 78 FR 64038 (October 18, 2013) (SR-EDGX-2013-39) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend EDGX Rule 4.3, Record of Written Complains, to Conform with Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. Rule 4513).

    Pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act,6 the Exchange and FINRA entered into an agreement to allocate regulatory responsibility for common rules (the “17d-2 Agreement”). The 17d-2 Agreement covers common members of the Exchange and FINRA and allocates to FINRA regulatory responsibility, with respect to common members, for the following: (i) examination of common members of the Exchange and FINRA for compliance with federal securities laws, rules and regulations and rules of the Exchange that the Exchange has certified as identical or substantially similar to FINRA rules; (ii) investigation of common members of the Exchange and FINRA for violations of federal securities laws, rules or regulations, or Exchange rules that the Exchange has certified as identical or substantially identical to a FINRA rule; and (iii) enforcement of compliance by common members of the Exchange and FINRA with the federal securities laws, rules and regulations, and the rules of the Exchange that the Exchange has certified as identical or substantially similar to FINRA rules.7

    6 17 CFR 240.17d-2.

    7See Securities and Exchange Release No. 58375 (August 13, 2008), 75 FR 51295 (August 19, 2008) (approving File No. 10-198).

    The 17d-2 Agreement included a certification by the Exchange that states that the requirements contained in certain Exchange rules are identical to, or substantially similar to, certain FINRA rules that have been identified as comparable. To conform to comparable FINRA rules for purposes of the 17d-2 Agreement, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4.3, Record of Written Complaints, to align with FINRA Rule 4513.8

    8See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63784 (January 27, 2011), 76 FR 5850 (February 2, 2011) (Order Approving Proposed Rule Change); (File No. SR-FINRA-2010-052).

    Exchange Rule 4.3 currently requires that members of the Exchange (“Members”) keep and preserve written customer complaints 9 for a period of not less than five years, the first two of which must be in a readily accessible place. To take into account FINRA's four-year routine examination cycle for certain members, FINRA Rule 4513 requires that members preserve the customer complaint records for a period of at least four years. Under the 17d-2 Agreement, FINRA examines common members of the Exchange and FINRA for compliance with Exchange Rule 4.3. However, because of the differing retention periods between Exchange Rule 4.3 and FINRA Rule 4513, the 17d-2 Agreement specifically states that FINRA has the regulatory responsibilities for the first four years of Exchange Rule 4.3's five year record retention requirement.

    9 Exchange Rule 4.3(b) defines a “complaint” as “any written statement of a customer or any person acting on behalf of a customer alleging a grievance involving the activities of a Member or persons under the control of the Member in connection with (1) the solicitation or execution of any transaction conducted or contemplated to be conducted through the facilities of the Exchange or (2) the disposition of securities or funds of that customer which activities are related to such a transaction.”

    The Exchange, therefore, proposes to decrease the record retention requirements under Rule 4.3 from five to four years. The Exchange believes that amending the record retention requirements for customer complaints to align with FINRA Rule 4513 would help to avoid confusion among Members that are also members of FINRA, EDGA, or EDGX. The Exchange further believes that aligning the Exchange's rules with FINRA Rule 4513 would account for FINRA's four-year routine examination cycle for certain members, which FINRA conducts on the Exchange's behalf under the 17d-2 Agreement ensuring consistent regulation of Members that are also members of FINRA.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 10 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 11 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, by eliminating unnecessary confusion with respect to the Exchange's rules. The proposed rule change should provide greater harmonization between similar Exchange, EDGA, EDGX and FINRA rules, resulting in greater uniformity and less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance. The proposed rule change should foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities and should remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.12

    10See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    (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 not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed change would apply to all Members equally.

    (C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) 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)(ii) of the Act 13 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.14

    13See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).

    14See 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

    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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File No. SR-BYX-2015-20 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 No. SR-BYX-2015-20. 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 No. SR-BYX-2015-20 and should be submitted on or before April 30, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.15

    15See 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08110 Filed 4-8-15; 08:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 500-1] In the Matter of AuraSound, Inc., C2C CrowdFunding, Inc., Convenience TV Inc., Global Security Agency Inc., and NewMarket Technology, Inc., Order of Suspension of Trading April 7, 2015.

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of AuraSound, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended December 31, 2011.

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of C2C CrowdFunding, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2012.

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Convenience TV Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2012.

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Global Security Agency Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2012.

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of NewMarket Technology, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2011.

    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on April 7, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on April 20, 2015.

    By the Commission.

    Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08261 Filed 4-7-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74644; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2015-031] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Rule 4758 April 3, 2015.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that, on March 30, 2015, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ” or “Exchange”) 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 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 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4758 (Order Routing) to (a) explain the treatment of a DOT or DOTI order designated to participate in the closing only; (b) explain the treatment of a LIST order designated to participate in the closing only; and (c) explain the treatment of a LIST order in the after-hours market.4 The Exchange also proposes to make technical changes to further explain the language of the rule.

    4 For a description of market sessions and hours on the Exchange, see Rule 4120(b)(4). DOT, DOTI, and LIST orders are defined below.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/, at the Exchange's principal office, 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 aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend subsection (a)(1)(A) of Rule 4758 to: (a) Explain the treatment of a DOT or DOTI order designated to participate in the closing only; (b) explain the treatment of a LIST order designated to participate in the closing only; and (c) explain the treatment of a LIST order in the after-hours market. The Exchange also proposes to make technical changes to further explain the language of the rule.

    NASDAQ offers its members optional routing functionality that allows them to use NASDAQ's facilities to access liquidity available on other trading venues. The functionality includes a range of defined routing algorithms—known as strategies—that determine the destinations and pattern of routing. The particular pattern of routing to other venues associated with a particular strategy is referred to in Rule 4758 as the “System routing table.” All routing is designed to be conducted in a manner consistent with the requirements of Regulation NMS.

    NASDAQ currently offers a set of strategies designed to allow market participants to route orders to the primary market on which a security is listed. NASDAQ is proposing minor changes to these strategies to improve their functioning and make clear the language of the rule. As an example, NASDAQ currently offers the DOT strategy (which includes several variations) as a means of designating an order for routing to the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) or NYSE MKT (formerly NYSE Amex) for participation in their respective opening or closing processes. DOT orders are routed directly to NYSE or NYSE MKT, as appropriate. After attempting to execute in the opening or closing process, if any shares remain unexecuted, DOT orders thereafter check the NASDAQ Market Center System for available shares and behave as SCAN or STGY orders, depending on the designation of the entering firm.5 DOTI and LIST strategies are discussed below.

    5 STGY is a routing option under which orders check the System for available shares and simultaneously route the remaining shares to destinations on the applicable System routing table. If shares remain un-executed after routing, they are posted on the NASDAQ book. Once the order is on the book, if the order is subsequently locked or crossed by another accessible market center, the System routes the order to the locking or crossing market center. SCAN behaves similarly, but once the order is on the NASDAQ book, the System will not route the order to a locking or crossing market center. Although both options are described in Rule 4758 as variations of the DOT strategy, NASDAQ's system specifications refer to the SCAN option as either “DOTA” or “DOTD” and refer to the STGY option as “DOTM.”

    The Proposal

    First, NASDAQ is proposing to modify the language of subsection (a)(1)(A) of Rule 4758 to make it clear that a DOT order may be designated to participate in the opening only or in the closing only, with different outcomes. Currently, an order entered before the open (or close) that is designated as opening only (or closing only) will likely be cancelled by the destination market after the open (or close) in accordance with its terms and therefore will not return to NASDAQ, even if not executed in full. Similarly, if NASDAQ receives a DOT order after the security has opened (or closed) and the order has been designated to participate in the opening only (or closing only), the order will nevertheless be routed to NYSE or NYSE MKT (which would be expected to reject the order based on its designation as opening only or closing only).6 Specifically, the Exchange proposes in subsection (a)(1)(A)(i) of Rule 4758 to delete the option of a DOT order being designated to participate in the closing only at the proper time as described below, in which case a closing only order would be expected to be rejected by the destination market and would also be cancelled by NASDAQ if returned by the destination market. The Exchange proposes new language in subsection (a)(1)(A)(i) stating that if a DOT order entered in NYSE or NYSE MKT securities has been designated to participate in the closing only and is entered at 3:45 p.m. Eastern Time or later (or in the case of an early closing, is entered 15 minutes prior to the close or later), the order will be rejected.7 A DOT order entered in non-NYSE or non-NYSE MKT securities, however, will be treated as a SCAN or STGY order depending on the designation of the firm. The Exchange believes the proposed explanation of how DOT orders will be treated makes the rule clearer and easier to follow, and should serve to minimize any potential confusion regarding its application.8 The modifications make clear the processing logic for NYSE or NYSE MKT and non- NYSE or non-NYSE MKT orders. The modifications also make clear the processing logic for NYSE or NYSE MKT DOT orders designated to participate in the closing only and entered at 3:45 p.m. Eastern Time or later (or in the case of an early closing, entered 15 minutes prior to the close or later), which would be rejected. Also, the modifications make clear the processing logic for a non-NYSE or NYSE MKT DOT order, which would continue to be treated as SCAN or STGY orders depending on the designation of the firm.

    6 In the event that an opening or closing only order was returned to NASDAQ after the time of the open or close on the destination market, NASDAQ would cancel the order.

    7 NYSE and NYSE MKT rules do not permit the entry of on close orders after 3:45 p.m. Eastern Time unless they are offsetting an imbalance. Since the Exchange is a pass through for these purposes and does not read imbalances, the System is set to reject at the 3:45 p.m. Eastern Time cut-off or later (or in the case of an early closing, to reject 15 minutes prior to the close or later), so that the Exchange is in synch with the rules of NYSE and NYSE MKT. As discussed, the Exchange adds language to ensure that the noted orders are rejected if there is an early market close. This is similar for DOT, DOTI, and LIST.

    8 For additional explanation and clarity in subsection (a)(1)(A)(i), the Exchange proposes to add the phrase “if applicable” following “after attempting to execute in the opening or closing process.”

    Second, NASDAQ is proposing similar changes to the DOTI routing strategy in subsection (a)(1)(A) of Rule 4758 to make it clear that a DOTI order may be designated to participate in the opening only but not in the closing only under certain circumstances. Currently, DOTI is a routing option for orders that the entering firm wishes to direct to the NYSE or NYSE MKT without them returning to the NASDAQ Market Center. DOTI orders check the System for available shares and then are sent to destinations on the System routing table before being sent to NYSE or NYSE MKT, as appropriate. Alternatively, the member entering the order may opt to have it check the System and then be sent directly to NYSE or NYSE MKT, without routing to destinations on the System routing table.9 DOTI orders do not return to the NASDAQ Market Center book after routing. Specifically, the Exchange proposes in subsection (a)(1)(A)(ii)a. of Rule 4758 to delete the current option of a DOTI order being designated to participate in the closing only at the proper time as described below, in which case a closing only order would be expected to be rejected by the destination market and would also be cancelled by NASDAQ if returned by the destination market. The Exchange proposes new language in subsection (a)(1)(A)(ii)a. stating that if a DOTI order entered in NYSE or NYSE MKT securities has been designated to participate in the closing only and is entered at 3:45 p.m. Eastern Time or later (or in the case of an early closing, is entered 15 minutes prior to the close or later) it will be rejected.10 The Exchange believes the proposed explanation of how DOTI orders will be treated makes the rule clearer and easier to follow, and should serve to minimize any potential confusion regarding its application. As is the case with DOT, the modifications make clear the processing logic for NYSE or NYSE MKT DOTI orders designated to participate in the closing only and entered at 3:45 p.m. Eastern Time or later (or in the case of an early closing, entered 15 minutes prior to the close or later), which would be rejected.

    9 This option is referred to in system specifications as “DOTZ”.

    10See also supra note 6.

    Third, NASDAQ is proposing similar changes to the LIST routing strategy in subsection (a)(1)(A) of Rule 4758 to make it clear how a LIST order designated to participate in the closing only will be handled. Currently, LIST is a routing option designed to allow orders to participate in the opening and/or closing process of the primary listing market for a security, and to follow additional routing logic as described below. A LIST order received before the security has opened on its primary listing market will be routed to the primary listing market for participation in that market's opening process. After the security has opened on its primary listing market, unexecuted shares will be returned to the NASDAQ system; the order would be returned only to the extent that the order has not been designated opening only and has not been fully executed, rejected, or cancelled by the destination market. Thereafter, the order will check the System for available shares and simultaneously route the remaining shares to destinations on the System routing table. Any remaining shares will be posted on the book. As with DOT and DOTI, if a LIST order is received by NASDAQ before the destination market is able to receive orders for its opening process, the order will be held until such time as the destination market can receive it. The Exchange specifically proposes new language in subsection (a)(1)(A)(x) to state that for NYSE and NYSE MKT securities, LIST orders that have been designated to participate in the closing only and are entered at the 3:45 p.m. Eastern Time cut-off or later (or in the case of an early closing, are entered 15 minutes prior to the close or later), will be rejected. This is the same as DOT and DOTI. Currently, the provision in subsection (a)(1)(A)(x) governing a LIST order that has been designated to participate in the closing only and is entered after the security has closed states that the order will nevertheless be routed to the primary listing market. The Exchange proposes to add language stating “unless the primary market for the security is NYSE or NYSE MKT.” 11 Accordingly, if a LIST order has been designated to participate in the closing only and is entered after the security has closed and the primary market for the security is other than NYSE or NYSE MKT, the order will nevertheless be routed to the primary listing market. Currently, subsection (a)(1)(A)(x) states that LIST Orders received after market close that have not been designated as closing only will check the System for available shares and simultaneously route the remaining shares to destinations on the System routing table. The Exchange proposes to add language regarding such LIST orders, stating “and are eligible, based on the orders' time-in force,12 to participate in the after-hours market.” Accordingly, LIST Orders received after market close that have not been designated as closing only and are eligible, based on the orders' time-in force, to participate in the after-hours market will check the System for available shares and simultaneously route the remaining shares to destinations on the System routing table. Any remaining shares will be posted to the NASDAQ book. This additional language explains the processing logic if a LIST order is received after market close and is not designated to participate in the closing only.

    11 Based on its designation as closing only, this type of eligible LIST order will nevertheless be routed to the primary listing market; based on its designation as closing only, such an order would be expected to be rejected by the destination market, and would also be cancelled by NASDAQ if returned by the destination market. Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(x). If the primary market for the security is NYSE or NYSE MKT, the order will be rejected because the cutoff is at 3:45 p.m. Eastern Time or later (or in the case of an early closing, is at 15 minutes prior to the close or later). See also supra note 6.

    12 For example, orders with a time in force that is valid for extended hours trading.

    By way of housekeeping, the Exchange also proposes additional explanatory language in respect of LIST orders. First, where currently Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(x) states that two minutes before market close, all LIST orders on the book “will route” to the security's primary listing market for participation in its closing process, the Exchange proposes to say “will begin routing” in recognition of the fact that the sheer volume of orders will not allow all orders to route at exactly the same time. Second, where currently Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(x) states that after the security has closed on the primary listing market, a LIST order that has not been designated as “a closing only order” and that has not been fully executed, rejected, or cancelled by the market to which it was routed will be returned to the NASDAQ System, the Exchange proposes to state “a closing only or MDAY order” in recognition of the time in force of a MDAY order.13

    13 “Market Hours Day” or “MDAY” shall mean for orders so designated, that if after entry into the System, the order is not fully executed, the order (or unexecuted portion thereof) shall remain available for potential display and/or execution until 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, unless canceled by the entering party, after which it shall be returned to the entering party. MDAY Orders shall be available for entry from 4:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time and for potential execution from 9:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Rule 4751(h)(6).

    The Exchange believes that these proposed explanatory changes are non-controversial and are consistent with the Act.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, including the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.14 In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 15 requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

    14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    NASDAQ believes that the changes will make clear to market participants that they may not designate DOT and DOTI orders to participate in the closing only of a primary listing venue under certain circumstances. In addition, NASDAQ proposes to clearly explain to market participants how orders designated to participate in the closing only and are entered at 3:45 p.m. Eastern Time or later (or in the case of an early closing, are entered 15 minutes prior to the close or later) will be handled. Collectively, the changes discussed in the proposal facilitate transactions in securities and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by providing NASDAQ members with greater explanation regarding the routing of their orders. The Exchange believes the changes make clear the language to Rule 4758 and make it easier to follow, and should serve to minimize any potential confusion regarding its application. The majority of the changes are explanatory, and some are technical in nature.

    As noted, the Exchange believes that the changes proposed are explanatory and non-controversial in nature.

    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 in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact on competition.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) 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)(ii) of the Act 16 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.17

    16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).

    17 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

    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: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-031 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-NASDAQ-2015-031. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also 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-NASDAQ-2015-031 and should be submitted on or before April 30, 2015.

    18 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.18

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08109 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74643; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-95] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 1 and Partial Amendment No. 2, Amending Rule 13—Equities and Related Rules Governing Order Types and Modifiers April 3, 2015.

    On October 31, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rule 13—Equities and other related Exchange rules governing order types and order modifiers. The proposed rule change was published in the Federal Register on November 20, 2014.3 On November 14, 2014, the Exchange submitted Partial Amendment No. 1 to the Commission.4 On December 22, 2014, the Exchange submitted Partial Amendment No. 2 to the Commission. On December 22, 2014, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,5 the Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.6 On February 18, 2015, the Commission instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule changes.7

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73593 (Nov. 14, 2014), 79 FR 69153 (“Notice”).

    4 The Exchange also submitted a copy of the amendment to the public comment file. See Letter from Sudhir Bhattacharyya, Vice President, New York Stock Exchange, to Kevin M. O'Neill, Deputy Secretary, Commission (Nov. 14, 2014).

    5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    6See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73913, 79 FR 78531 (Dec. 30, 2014).

    7See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74298, 80 FR 9770 (Feb. 24, 2015).

    On February 26, 2014, the Exchange withdrew the proposal SR-NYSEMKT-2014-95.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.8

    8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08108 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION [Docket No: SSA-2015-0019] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request

    The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions and extensions of OMB-approved information collections.

    SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.

    (OMB); Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax: 202-395-6974, Email address: [email protected] (SSA); Social Security Administration, OLCA, Attn: Reports Clearance Director, 3100 West High Rise, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 410-966-2830, Email address: [email protected]

    Or you may submit your comments online through www.regulations.gov, referencing Docket ID Number [SSA-2015-0015].

    I. The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than June 8, 2015. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.

    1. Disability Report-Adult—20 CFR 404.1512 and 416.912—0960-0579. State Disability Determination Services (DDS) use the SSA-3368 and its electronic versions to determine if adult disability applicants' impairments are severe, and, if so, how the impairments affect the applicants' ability to work. This determination dictates whether the DDSs and SSA will find the applicant disabled and entitled to Supplement Security Income (SSI) payments. The respondents are applicants for Title II disability benefits or Title XVI SSI payments.

    Type of Request: Revision of an OMB-approved information collection.

    Modality of completion Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of response Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (minutes)
  • Estimated total annual burden
  • (hours)
  • SSA-3368 (Paper form) 7,571 1 90 11,357 Electronic Disability Collection System (EDCS) 2,484,231 1 90 3,726,346 i3368 (Internet) 1,060,360 1 90 1,590,540 Totals 3,552,162 5,328,243

    2. Representative Payment Policies Regulation—20 CFR 404.2011(a)(1), 404.2025, 416.611(a)(1), 416.625—0960-0679. Per 20 CFR 404.2011 and 20 CFR 416.611 of the Code of Federal Regulations, if SSA determines it may cause substantial harm for Title II or Title XVI recipients to receive their payments directly, recipients may dispute that decision. To do so, recipients provide SSA with information the agency uses to re-evaluate its determination. In addition, our regulations state that after SSA selects a representative payee to receive benefits on a recipient's behalf, the payees provide SSA with information on their continuing relationship and responsibility for the recipients, and explain how they use the recipients' payments. Sections 20 CFR 404.2025 and 20 CFR 416.625 of the Code of Federal Regulations provide a process to follow up with the representative payee to verify payee performance. The respondents are Title II and Title XVI recipients, and their representative payees.

    Type of Request: Extension of an OMB-approved information collection.

    CFR citation Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of
  • response
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (minutes)
  • Estimated total annual burden
  • (hours)
  • 404.2011(a)(1);
  • 416.611(a)(1)
  • 250 1 15 63
    404.2025;
  • 416.625
  • 3,000 1 6 300
    Totals 3,250 363

    II. SSA submitted the information collections below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding the information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than May 11, 2015. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance packages by writing to [email protected]

    1. Certification by Religious Group—20 CFR 404.1075—0960-0093. SSA is responsible for determining whether religious groups meet the qualifications exempting certain members and sects from payment of Self-Employment Contribution Act taxes under the Internal Revenue Code, Section 1402(g). SSA sends Form SSA-1458, Certification by Religious Group, to a group's authorized spokesperson to complete and verify organizational members meet or continue to meet the criteria for exemption. The respondents are spokespersons for religious groups or sects.

    Type of Request: Revision of an OMB-approved information collection.

    Modality of completion Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of response Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (minutes)
  • Estimated total annual burden
  • (hours)
  • SSA-1458 180 1 15 45

    2. Request for Reconsideration—Disability Cessation—20 CFR 404.909, 416.1409—0960-0349. When SSA determines that claimants' disabilities ceased or are no longer sufficiently disabling, these claimants may ask SSA to reconsider that determination. SSA uses Form SSA-789-U4 to arrange for a hearing or to prepare a decision based on the evidence of record. Specifically, claimants or their representatives use Form SSA-789-U4 to: (1) ask SSA to reconsider a determination; (2) indicate if they wish to appear at a disability hearing; (3) submit any additional information or evidence for use in the reconsidered determination; and (4) indicate if they will need an interpreter for the hearing. The respondents are applicants or claimants for Social Security benefits or SSI payments.

    Type of Request: Revision of an OMB-approved information collection.

    Modality of completion Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of response Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (minutes)
  • Estimated Total Annual Burden
  • (hours)
  • SSA-789-U4 30,000 1 13 6,500

    3. Prohibition of Payment of SSI Benefits to Fugitive Felons and Parole/Probation Violators—20 CFR 416.708(o)—0960-0617. Section 1611(e)(4) of the Social Security Act precludes eligibility for SSI payments for certain fugitives and probation/parole violators. Regulations at 20 CFR 416.708(o) require individuals applying for or receiving SSI to report to SSA that: (1) They are fleeing to avoid prosecution for a crime; (2) they are fleeing to avoid custody or confinement after conviction of a crime; or (3) they are violating a condition of probation or parole. SSA uses the information we receive to deny eligibility, or suspend recipients' SSI payments. The respondents are SSI applicants and recipients, or representative payees of SSI applicants and recipients, who are reporting their status as a fugitive felon or probation/parole violator.

    Type of Request: Extension of an OMB-approved information collection.

    Modality of completion Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of response Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (minutes)
  • Estimated total annual burden
  • (hours)
  • Modernized SSI Claims System 1,000 1 1 17

    4. Identifying Information for Possible Direct Payment of Authorized Fees—0960-0730. SSA collects information from claimants' appointed representatives on Form SSA-1695 to: (1) Process and facilitate direct payment of authorized fees; (2) issue a Form 1099-MISC, if applicable; and (3) establish a link between each claim for benefits and the data we collect on the SSA-1699 for our appointed representative database. The respondents are attorneys and other individuals who represent claimants for benefits before SSA.

    Type of Request: Revision of an OMB approved information collection.

    Modality of completion Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of response Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (minutes)
  • Estimated total annual burden
  • (hours)
  • SSA-1695 10,000 40 10 66,667

    5. Request for Business Entity Taxpayer Information—0960-0731. Law firms or other business entities must complete Form SSA-1694, Request for Business Entity Taxpayer Information, if they wish to serve as appointed representatives and receive direct payment of fees from SSA. SSA uses the information to issue a Form 1099-MISC. SSA also uses the information to allow business entities to designate individuals to serve as entity administrators authorized to perform certain administrative duties on their behalf, such as providing bank account information, maintaining entity information, and updating individual affiliations. Respondents are law firms or other business entities with attorneys or other qualified individuals as partners or employees who represent claimants before SSA.

    Type of Request: Revision of an OMB-approved information collection.

    Modality of completion Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of response Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (minutes)
  • Estimated total annual burden (hours)
    SSA-1694—Paper Version 1,000 1 10 167 SSA-1694—Business Services Online Submission 1,000 1 10 167 Totals 2,000 334

    6. Request to Pay Civil Monetary by Installment Agreement—20 CFR 498—0960-0776. When SSA imposes a civil monetary penalty (CMP) on individuals for various fraudulent conduct related to SSA-administrated programs, those individuals may request to pay the CMP through benefit withholding, or an installment agreement. To negotiate a monthly payment amount, fair to both the individual and the agency, SSA needs financial information from the individual. The agency uses Form SSA-640 to obtain the information necessary to determine a monthly installment repayment rate for individuals owing a CMP. The respondents are recipients of Social Security benefits and non-entitled individuals who must repay a CMP to the agency and choose to do so using an installment plan.

    Type of Request: Revision of an OMB-approved information collection.

    Modality of completion Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of response Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (minutes)
  • Estimated total annual burden
  • (hours)
  • SSA-640 400 1 120 800
    Dated: April 6, 2015. Faye I. Lipsky, Reports Clearance Officer, Social Security Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08165 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
    SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION [Docket No. SSA-2014-0053] Social Security Ruling, SSR 15-1p; Titles II and XVI: Evaluating Cases Involving Interstitial Cystitis (IC); Correction AGENCY:

    Social Security Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Social Security Ruling; Correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Social Security Administration published a document in the Federal Register of March 18, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015-05680, on page 14217, in the first column, in section “D,” in the second sentence, delete “and dimethyl sulfoxide”.

    Faye I. Lipsky, Director, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance Social Security Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08136 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice: 9088] Notice of Public Meeting of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Scientific Advisory Board SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the PEPFAR Scientific Advisory Board hereinafter referred to as “the Board”, will meet as indicated below.

    The U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Scientific Advisory Board will meet on Thursday, April 30th via teleconference. The meeting will be from 9 a.m. ET until approximately 10:30 a.m. ET and is open to the public (please see teleconference phone number below). The meeting will be hosted by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, Ambassador Deborah L. Birx, who leads implementation of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The PEPFAR Scientific Advisory Board serves the Global AIDS Coordinator in a solely advisory capacity concerning scientific, implementation, and policy issues related to the global response to HIV/AIDS. These issues will be of concern as they influence the priorities and direction of PEPFAR evaluation and research, the content of national and international strategies and implementation, and the role of PEPFAR in the international discourse regarding appropriate and resourced responses. The April 30th teleconference will act as an introduction to PEPFAR programs, the goals of the Board, and provide an overview and forum for discussion of PEPFAR 3.0, (http://www.pepfar.gov/documents/organization/234744.pdf) which sets the strategic direction of the program. The public may attend this meeting by using the conference number provided here: (United States: (800) 230-1951/International: (612) 332-0226/Confirmation Number: 357464).

    To RSVP, please contact the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator: email ([email protected]), by April 22nd, 2015. While the meeting is open to public attendance, the Board will determine procedures for public participation and will announce those procedures at the meeting.

    For further information about the meeting, please contact Dr. Julia MacKenzie, Senior Technical Advisor and Designated Federal Officer, Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator at (202) 663-1079 or [email protected]

    Dated: April 2, 2015. Julia MacKenzie, Senior Technical Advisor, Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, U.S. Department of State.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08157 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at the Former Stapleton International Airport, Denver, Colorado AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of request to release airport property.

    SUMMARY:

    The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the release of land at the former Stapleton International Airport (SIA) under the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), now 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Mr. John P. Bauer, Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Airports Division, Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E. 68th Avenue, Suite 224, Denver, Colorado 80249-6361.

    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Greg Holt, Stapleton Redevelopment Program Manager, Denver International Airport, at the following address: Mr. Greg Holt, Stapleton Redevelopment Program Manager, Denver International Airport, 8500 Pena Boulevard, Ninth Floor, Room 9870, Denver, Colorado 80249-6340.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Marc Miller, Colorado Engineer/Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E. 68th Avenue, Suite 224, Denver, Colorado 80249-6361.

    The request to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in person at this same location.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The FAA invites public comment on the request to release property at the former Stapleton International Airport under the provisions of the AIR 21 (49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2)).

    The Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987, Public Law 100-223, 101 Stat. 1529, Section 313(a), gave the Secretary of Transportation the authorization, subject to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of October 1, 1949 (63 Stat. 700; 50 U.S.C. App. 1622c), to grant Stapleton International Airport release from any of the terms, conditions, reservations, or restrictions contained in each deed of conveyance under which the United States conveyed property to the City and County of Denver, Colorado, on which any portion of Stapleton International Airport is located. This included property conveyed under Section 16 of the Federal Airport Act (60 Stat. 179).

    On April 3, 2015, the FAA determined that the request to release property at the former Stapleton International Airport submitted by the City and County of Denver meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration.

    The following is a brief overview of the request:

    The City and County of Denver is proposing the release from the terms, conditions, reservations and restrictions on 73.310 acres of property identified as SIA Section 10 (Eastern Portion) at the former Stapleton International Airport. This parcel was conveyed from the United States of America to the City and County of Denver to be used for aviation development on October 29, 1969. Denver voters endorsed the plan to build a new airport, to be called Denver International Airport. Stapleton International Airport closed on February 28, 1995, when Denver International Airport opened, and the FAA transferred all City and County of Denver's grant obligations in connection with Stapleton International Airport to the development and operation of Denver International Airport. The Stapleton property has slowly been redeveloped over the past 20 years for homes, businesses, roads, parks, and open space, in accordance with zoning, plats, and general development plans approved by the City and County of Denver. The sale of this property will be based on an appraisal conducted in January 2000 which was approved by the FAA in April 2000. The City and County of Denver will treat all proceeds as airport revenue and will be used exclusively in connection with Denver International Airport, specifically for the payment of debt.

    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    In addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Denver International Airport.

    Issued in Denver, Colorado on April 3, 2015. John P. Bauer, Manager, Denver Airports District Office.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08206 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Intent to Rule on Request to Release Airport Property at the Former Stapleton International Airport, Denver, Colorado AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of request to release airport property.

    SUMMARY:

    The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the release of land at the former Stapleton International Airport (SIA) under the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), now 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Mr. John P. Bauer, Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Airports Division, Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E. 68th Avenue, Suite 224, Denver, Colorado 80249-6361.

    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Greg Holt, Stapleton Redevelopment Program Manager, Denver International Airport, at the following address: Mr. Greg Holt, Stapleton Redevelopment Program Manager, Denver International Airport, 8500 Pena Boulevard, Ninth Floor, Room 9870, Denver, Colorado 80249-6340.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Marc Miller, Colorado Engineer/Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E. 68th Avenue, Suite 224, Denver, Colorado 80249-6361.

    The request to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in person at this same location.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The FAA invites public comment on the request to release property at the former Stapleton International Airport under the provisions of the AIR 21 (49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2)).

    The Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987, Public Law 100-223, 101 Stat. 1529, Section 313(a), gave the Secretary of Transportation the authorization, subject to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of October 1, 1949 (63 Stat. 700; 50 U.S.C. App. 1622c), to grant Stapleton International Airport release from any of the terms, conditions, reservations, or restrictions contained in each deed of conveyance under which the United States conveyed property to the City and County of Denver, Colorado, on which any portion of Stapleton International Airport is located. This included property conveyed under Section 16 of the Federal Airport Act (60 Stat. 179).

    On April 3, 2015, the FAA determined that the request to release property at the former Stapleton International Airport submitted by the City and County of Denver meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration.

    The following is a brief overview of the request:

    The City and County of Denver is proposing the release from the terms, conditions, reservations and restrictions on the remaining property identified in Section 15 (68.931 acres) and Section 22 (150.708 acres) at the former Stapleton International Airport. These parcels were conveyed from the United States of America to the City and County of Denver to be used for aviation development on November 22, 1957, February 26, 1960, and July 18, 1963. In May 1989, Denver voters endorsed the plan to build a new airport, to be called Denver International Airport. Stapleton International Airport closed on February 28, 1995, when Denver International Airport opened, and the FAA transferred all City and County of Denver's grant obligations in connection with Stapleton International Airport to the development and operation of Denver International Airport. The Stapleton property has slowly been redeveloped over the past 20 years for homes, businesses, roads, parks, and open space, in accordance with zoning, plats, and general development plans approved by the City and County of Denver. The sale of this property will be based on an appraisal conducted in January 2000 which was approved by the FAA in April 2000. The City and County of Denver will treat all proceeds as airport revenue and will be used exclusively in connection with Denver International Airport, specifically for the payment of debt.

    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    In addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Denver International Airport.

    Issued in Denver, Colorado on April 3, 2015. John P. Bauer, Manager, Denver Airports District Office.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08215 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. FAA aviation safety inspectors review Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) Certification Training Program (CTP) submittals to determine that the program complies with the applicable requirements of 14 CFR 61.156.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted by June 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 300, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.

    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 2120-0755.

    Title: Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations.

    Form Numbers: FAA Form 8700-1.

    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.

    Background: FAA aviation safety inspectors review the Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) Certification Training Program (CTP) submittals to determine that the program complies with the applicable requirements of 14 CFR 61.156. The programs that comply with the minimum requirements receive approval to begin offering or providing the course to applicants for an ATP certificate with a multiengine class rating or an ATP certificate obtained concurrently with an airplane type rating. The inspectors also review an institution of higher education's application (new form) for the authority to certify its graduates meet the minimum requirements of 14 CFR 61.160. The institutions of higher education that receive a letter of authorization for their degree program(s) will be authorized to place a certifying statement on a graduates' transcript indicating he or she is eligible for a restricted privileges ATP certificate.

    Respondents: Approximately 170 applicants.

    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.

    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 120 hours for ATP CTP course development, 8 hours for application for the authority to certify that graduates meet the minimum requirements of 14 CFR 61.160.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 4,297 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 2, 2015. Ronda Thompson, FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business Services Division, ASP-110.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08117 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Survey of Airman Satisfaction With Aeromedical Certification Services AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. This survey assesses airman opinion of key dimensions of service quality of aeromedical certification services.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted by June 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 300, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.

    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 2120-0707.

    Title: Survey of Airman Satisfaction With Aeromedical Certification Services.

    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this collection.

    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.

    Background: The FAA, through the Office of Aerospace Medicine (OAM), is responsible for the medical certification of pilots and certain other personnel under 14 CFR part 67 to ensure they are medically qualified to operate aircraft and perform their duties safely. In the accomplishment of this responsibility, OAM provides a number of services to pilots, and has established goals for the performance of those services. This survey is designed to meet the requirement to survey stakeholder satisfaction under Executive Order No. 12862, “Setting Customer Service Standards,” and the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA).

    Respondents: Approximately 2,333 pilots and certain other personnel who have applied for medical certification.

    Frequency: Information is collected biennially.

    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 583.25 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 2, 2015. Ronda Thompson, FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business Services Division, ASP-110.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08118 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee; Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(A) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the FAA Research, Engineering and Development (R,E&D) Advisory Committee.

    AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Meeting.

    NAME:

    Research, Engineering & Development Advisory Committee

    TIME AND DATE:

    April 22, 2015—9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Place: Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,—Round Room (10th Floor), Washington, DC 20591

    Purpose: The meeting agenda will include receiving from the Committee guidance for FAA's research and development investments in the areas of air traffic services, airports, aircraft safety, human factors and environment and energy. Attendance is open to the interested public but seating is limited. Persons wishing to attend the meeting or obtain information should contact Chinita A. Roundtree-Coleman at (609) 485-7149 or [email protected] Members of the public may present a written statement to the Committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC on March 25, 2015.

    Chinita A. Roundtree-Coleman, Computer Specialist.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08106 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certification of Airports AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. 14 CFR part 139 establishes certification requirements for airports serving scheduled air carrier operations in aircraft with 10-30 seats. These requirements result in information collections from respondents.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted by June 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 300, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.

    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 2120-0675

    Title: Certification of Airports.

    Form Numbers: FAA Form 5280-1.

    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.

    Background: The statutory authority to issue airport operating certificates to airports serving certain air carriers and to establish minimum safety standards for the operation of those airports is currently found in Title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.) § 44706, Airport operation certificates. The FAA uses this authority to issue requirements for the certification and operation of certain land airports. These requirements are contained in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulation part 139 (14 CFR part 139), Certification and Operations: Land Airports Serving Certain Air Carriers, as amended. Information collection requirements are used by the FAA to determine an airport operator's compliance with part 139 safety and operational requirements, and to assist airport personnel to perform duties required under the regulation.

    Respondents: Approximately 563 airports.

    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.

    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 22 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 100,132 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 2, 2015. Ronda Thompson, FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business Services Division, ASP-110.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08119 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aviation Insurance AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of information was published on December 4, 2014. The requested information is included in air carriers applications for insurance when insurance is not available from private sources.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted by May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected], or faxed to (202) 395-6974, or mailed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 2120-0514.

    Title: Aviation Insurance.

    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this collection.

    Type of Review: Extension without change of an information collection.

    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of information was published on December 4, 2014 (79 FR 72055). The information submitted by applicants for insurance under Chapter 443 of Title 49 U.S.C. is used by the FAA to identify the eligibility of parties to be insured, the amount of coverage required, and insurance premiums. Without collection of this information, the FAA would not be able to issue required insurance.

    Respondents: Approximately 61 applicants.

    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.

    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 4 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 616 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 2, 2015. Ronda Thompson, FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business Services Division, ASP-110.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08121 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration [Summary Notice No. PE-2015-21] Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of petition for exemption received.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

    DATES:

    Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before April 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments identified by Docket Number, FAA-2015-0194 using any of the following methods:

    Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically.

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

    Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251.

    Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sandra Long, ARM-200, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, email [email protected], phone (202) 267-4714.

    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 6, 2015. Lirio Liu, Director, Office of Rulemaking. Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2015-0194.

    Petitioner: United States Powered Paragliding Association.

    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 103.1.

    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner seeks to permit wheels to support the foot launchable powered paraglider tandem training units during launch and landing. In addition, the petitioner seeks to require an auto-inflating device that will work upon submersion in water. Part 103 does not prohibit carriage of such an auto-inflating device, and thus no relief from part 103 for use of the device(s) is required.

    [FR Doc. 2015-08155 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at the Former Stapleton International Airport, Denver, Colorado AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of request to release airport property.

    SUMMARY:

    The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the release of land at the former Stapleton International Airport (SIA) under the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), now 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Mr. John P. Bauer, Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Airports Division, Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E. 68th Avenue, Suite 224, Denver, Colorado 80249-6361.

    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Greg Holt, Stapleton Redevelopment Program Manager, Denver International Airport, at the following address: Mr. Greg Holt, Stapleton Redevelopment Program Manager, Denver International Airport, 8500 Pena Boulevard, Ninth Floor, Room 9870, Denver, Colorado 80249-6340.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Marc Miller, Colorado Engineer/Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E. 68th Avenue, Suite 224, Denver, Colorado 80249-6361.

    The request to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in person at this same location.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The FAA invites public comment on the request to release property at the former Stapleton International Airport under the provisions of the AIR 21 (49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2)).

    The Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987, Public Law 100-223, 101 Stat. 1529, Section 313(a), gave the Secretary of Transportation the authorization, subject to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of October 1, 1949 (63 Stat. 700; 50 U.S.C. App. 1622c), to grant Stapleton International Airport release from any of the terms, conditions, reservations, or restrictions contained in each deed of conveyance under which the United States conveyed property to the City and County of Denver, Colorado, on which any portion of Stapleton International Airport is located. This included property conveyed under Section 16 of the Federal Airport Act (60 Stat. 179).

    On April 3, 2015, the FAA determined that the request to release property at the former Stapleton International Airport submitted by the City and County of Denver meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration.

    The following is a brief overview of the request:

    The City and County of Denver is proposing the release from the terms, conditions, reservations and restrictions on 10.479 acres of property identified as SIA Section 10 (Northwest Corner) at the former Stapleton International Airport. This parcel was conveyed from the United States of America to the City and County of Denver to be used for aviation development on October 29, 1969. Denver voters endorsed the plan to build a new airport, to be called Denver International Airport. Stapleton International Airport closed on February 28, 1995, when Denver International Airport opened, and the FAA transferred all of City and County of Denver's grant obligations in connection with Stapleton International Airport to the development and operation of Denver International Airport. The Stapleton property has slowly been redeveloped over the past 20 years for homes, businesses, roads, parks, and open space, in accordance with zoning, plats, and general development plans approved by the City and County of Denver. The sale of this property will be based on an appraisal conducted in January 2000 which was approved by the FAA in April 2000. The City and County of Denver will treat all proceeds as airport revenue and will be used exclusively in connection with Denver International Airport, specifically for the payment of debt.

    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    In addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Denver International Airport.

    Issued in Denver, Colorado on April 3, 2015. John P. Bauer, Manager, Denver Airports District Office.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08217 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at the Former Stapleton International Airport, Denver, Colorado AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of request to release airport property.

    SUMMARY:

    The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the release of land at the former Stapleton International Airport (SIA) under the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), now 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Mr. John P. Bauer, Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Airports Division, Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E. 68th Avenue, Suite 224, Denver, Colorado 80249-6361.

    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Greg Holt, Stapleton Redevelopment Program Manager, Denver International Airport, at the following address: Mr. Greg Holt, Stapleton Redevelopment Program Manager, Denver International Airport, 8500 Pena Boulevard, Ninth Floor, Room 9870, Denver, Colorado 80249-6340.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Marc Miller, Colorado Engineer/Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E. 68th Avenue, Suite 224, Denver, Colorado 80249-6361.

    The request to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in person at this same location.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The FAA invites public comment on the request to release property at the former Stapleton International Airport under the provisions of the AIR 21 (49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2)).

    The Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987, Public Law 100-223, 101 Stat. 1529, Section 313(a), gave the Secretary of Transportation the authorization, subject to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of October 1, 1949 (63 Stat. 700; 50 U.S.C. App. 1622c), to grant Stapleton International Airport release from any of the terms, conditions, reservations, or restrictions contained in each deed of conveyance under which the United States conveyed property to the City and County of Denver, Colorado, on which any portion of Stapleton International Airport is located. This included property conveyed under Section 16 of the Federal Airport Act (60 Stat. 179).

    On April 3, 2015, the FAA determined that the request to release property at the former Stapleton International Airport submitted by the City and County of Denver meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration.

    The following is a brief overview of the request:

    The City and County of Denver is proposing the release from the terms, conditions, reservations and restrictions on 450.358 acres of property identified as SIA Section 10 (Central Portion) at the former Stapleton International Airport. This parcel was conveyed from the United States of America to the City and County of Denver to be used for aviation development on October 29, 1969. Denver voters endorsed the plan to build a new airport, to be called Denver International Airport. Stapleton International Airport closed on February 28, 1995, when Denver International Airport opened, and the FAA transferred all City and County of Denver's grant obligations in connection with Stapleton International Airport to the development and operation of Denver International Airport. The Stapleton property has slowly been redeveloped over the past 20 years for homes, businesses, roads, parks, and open space, in accordance with zoning, plats, and general development plans approved by the City and County of Denver. The sale of this property will be based on an appraisal conducted in January 2000 which was approved by the FAA in April 2000. The City and County of Denver will treat all proceeds as airport revenue and will be used exclusively in connection with Denver International Airport, specifically for the payment of debt.

    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    In addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Denver International Airport.

    Issued in Denver, Colorado on April 3, 2015. John P. Bauer, Manager, Denver Airports District Office.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08219 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aircraft Registration Renewal AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of information was published on December 22, 2014. The information collected on an Aircraft Registration Renewal Application, AC Form 8050-1B, is used by the FAA to verify and update aircraft registration information collected for an aircraft when it was first registered.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted by May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected], or faxed to (202) 395-6974, or mailed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 2120-0729

    Title: Aircraft Registration Renewal.

    Form Numbers: AC Form 8050-1B

    Type of Review: Revision of an information collection.

    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of information was published on December 22, 2014 (79 FR 76437). The information collected on an Aircraft Registration Renewal Application (AC Form 8050-1B) is used by the FAA to verify and update the aircraft registration information collected for an aircraft when it was first registered. The updated registration database will then be used by the FAA to monitor and control U.S. airspace and to distribute safety notices and airworthiness directives to aircraft owners.

    Respondents: Approximately 95,653 aircraft owners.

    Frequency: Information is collected triennially.

    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes to complete the form manually, 10 minutes to complete the form electronically.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 23,912 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 2, 2015. Ronda Thompson, FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business Services Division, ASP-110.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08122 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Notice of Intent to Prepare a Tier I Environmental Impact Statement: Dane County, Wisconsin AGENCY:

    Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT).

    ACTION:

    Federal Notice of Intent to Prepare a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (Tier 1 EIS).

    SUMMARY:

    The FHWA is issuing this revised notice to advise the public that FHWA and WisDOT will be preparing a Tier 1 EIS for proposed transportation improvements in the United States Highway (US) 51 corridor in Dane County, Wisconsin generally between Interstate 39/90 east of the City of Stoughton and US 12/18 (Madison South Beltline Highway). The previous Notice of Intent was to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and was published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2012.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Johnny Gerbitz, Field Operations Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, City Center West, 525 Junction Road, Suite 8000, Madison, Wisconsin, 53717-2157, Telephone: (608) 829-7500.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A needs assessment was conducted for the project corridor in 2004 followed by initiation of the environmental review process for an environmental impact statement (EIS). The EIS review process examined factors contributing to the need for improvements within the US 51 study corridor (long-term planning and corridor preservation, safety, roadway deficiencies, bike and pedestrian accommodations, and travel demand and capacity). Because of fiscal constraints, a commitment to improvements that address all of the need factors could not be made and the environmental review process is being converted from a standard EIS to a Tier 1 EIS.

    The FHWA, in cooperation with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), will prepare a Tier 1 EIS for proposed improvements to address safety, operational and capacity concerns on approximately 18 miles of US 51 between Interstate 39/90, east of the City of Stoughton, to US 12/18 (Madison South Beltline Highway), north of the Village of McFarland. The study will also examine a bypass of Stoughton, as well as potential operational improvements on existing US 51 in Stoughton. As alternatives to capacity improvements on US 51, the study will consider improvements on highways other than US 51 that might address the needs of travelers between the southeast portion of Dane County and the Madison Urban area. The Tier 1 EIS will evaluate the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the alternatives within the existing US 51 highway corridor, and other full build improvements on other regional highway corridors. The objective of this project is to address existing and future transportation demand and safety concerns as identified in the US 51 Needs Assessment Report. The Tier 1 EIS will be prepared in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 139, 23 CFR 771, and 40 CFR 1500-1508. Completion of the Tier 1 EIS and the Record of Decision (ROD) is expected in 2018.

    Public involvement is a critical component of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will occur throughout the development of the draft and final Tier 1 EIS. All environmental documents will be made available for review by federal and state resource agencies and the public. Specific efforts to encourage involvement by, and solicit comments from, minority and low-income populations in the project study area will be made, with public involvement meetings held throughout the environmental document process. Public notice will be given as to the time and place of public involvement meetings. A public hearing will be held after the completion of the Draft Tier 1 EIS.

    Inquiries related to this study can be sent to [email protected] A public Web site will be maintained throughout the study to provided information about the project and allow for on-line public comment (http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/5139901218/index.htm). To ensure the full range of issues related to the proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments and questions concerning the proposed action and this notice should be directed to the FHWA address provided above.

    Projects receiving Federal funds must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” Federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, age, sex, or country of national origin in the implementation of this project. It is also Federal policy to identify and address any disproportionately high and adverse effects of federal projects on the health or environment of minority and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) Issued on: April 2, 2015. Johnny M. Gerbitz, Field Operations Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08138 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in Texas AGENCY:

    Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT

    ACTION:

    Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA and Other Federal Agencies

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA and other Federal agencies that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. § 139(l)(1). The actions relate to a proposed highway project, Trinity Parkway from Interstate Highway 35 East (IH35E)/State Highway (SH) 183 to U.S. 175/SH 310 in the County of Dallas, State of Texas. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.

    DATES:

    By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. § 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before September 8, 2015. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Achille Alonzi, Division Administrator, Texas Division, Federal Highway Administration, 300 E. 8th Street, Room 826, Austin, Texas 78701; 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (central daylight time) Monday through Friday, 512-536-5902; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that the FHWA and other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the following highway project in the State of Texas: The Trinity Parkway (Texas Department of Transportation CSJ 0918-45-121) would consist of a limited-access toll facility on new location in the City of Dallas, extending from the IH 35E/SH 183 interchange (northern terminus) to the US 175/SH 310 interchange (southern terminus), a distance of approximately nine miles. The facility would ultimately consist of six mixed-flow tolled mainlanes, local street interchanges, and interchanges at the northern terminus, southern terminus, Woodall Rodgers Freeway, and IH 45. The primary purpose for the Trinity Parkway is to manage congestion on existing highways through the downtown Dallas area. Trinity Parkway would help manage congestion on IH 35E (Lower Stemmons and South R.L. Thornton Freeways), IH 30, and other major transportation facilities within the Trinity Parkway project area to improve mobility and safety, and thereby increase accessibility to businesses and public facilities.

    The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the project, approved on March 7, 2014, in the FHWA Record of Decision (ROD) issued on April 2, 2015, and in other documents in the FHWA administrative record. The FEIS, ROD, and other documents in the FHWA administrative record file are available by contacting the FHWA at the address provided above. The FHWA FEIS and ROD can be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at: https://www.ntta.org/roadsprojects/futproj/trihwy/Pages/Project-Meeting-Materials.aspx.

    This notice does not apply to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineering (U.S.A.C.E.) permitting process for this project, because no U.S.A.C.E. permits have been issued the project to date. This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:

    1. General: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321-4375]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109].

    2. Air: Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q)]

    3. Land: Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 [42 U.S.C. 4601-4655]; Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [Pub. L. No. 111-212, Section 405 (a)(b)].

    4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544]; Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 U.S.C. 703-712]; Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 [16 U.S.C. 668]; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661-666(c)].

    5. Social and Economic: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)-2000(d)(1)]; Section 504 of the Americans with Disability Act; Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) [7 U.S.C. 4201-4209].

    6. Wetlands and Water Resources: Clean Water Act [33 U.S.C. 1251-1342 (Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 402)]; Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 [33 U.S.C. 401], as modified by the General Bridge Act of 1946 [33 U.S.C. 525]; Wild and Scenic Rivers Act [16 U.S.C. 1271-1287]; Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 [42 U.S.C. 300(f)-300(j)(6)]; Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act [16 U.S.C. 460l-4 et seq.].

    7. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management; E.O. 13112 Invasive Species; E.O. 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations; E.O. 13166 Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP).

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) Authority:

    23 U.S.C. § 139(l)(1)

    Issued on: April 3, 2015. Achille Alonzi, Division Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08140 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-RY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration [Docket No. PHMSA-2014-0014] Pipeline Safety: Public Workshop on Pipeline Safety Management Systems AGENCY:

    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice is announcing a one-day public workshop to discuss the recent Pipeline Safety Management Systems (SMS) national consensus standard. The meeting will include participation from all major pipeline sectors, state and Federal regulators, and public safety advocates. This workshop will detail the development process of the SMS standard. The workshop will also emphasize the core elements of the standard including: Leadership and management commitment; risk management; emergency preparedness and response; competence awareness and training; management review and continuous commitment, and the critical role of safety culture.

    DATES:

    The public workshop will held on Wednesday, April 22, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EST. Written comments must be received by June 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The workshop will be held at the Westin Galleria, 5060 West Alabama Street, Houston, TX 77056. Hotel reservations can be made under the room block “PHMSA—Pipeline Safety Management SystemWorkshop/”.

    The meeting agenda and any additional information will be published on the PHMSA home page Web site at (http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline), and on the PHMSA meeting page Web site https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=102.

    Registration: Members of the public may attend this free workshop. To help assure that adequate space is provided, all attendees should register for the workshop in advance at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=102.

    Comments: Members of the public may also submit written comments either before or after the workshop. Comments should reference Docket No. PHMSA-2014-0014. Comments may be submitted in the following ways:

    E-Gov Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. This site allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice issued by any agency. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

    Mail: Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System, Room W12-140, on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE. Washington, DC between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Instructions: Identify the docket number at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA has received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Note:

    Comments will be posted without changes or edits to http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act Statement heading below for additional information.

    Privacy Act Statement

    Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received for any of our dockets. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19476).

    Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, please contact Nancy White, Office of Pipeline Safety, at 202-366-1419 or by email at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Nancy White, Office of Pipeline Safety, at 202-366-1419 or by email at [email protected], regarding the subject matter of this notice.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The details on this meeting, including the location, times and agenda items, will be available on the meeting page (https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=102) as they become available. Please note that the public workshop will be webcast. Attendees, both in person and by webcast, are strongly encouraged to register to help ensure accommodations are adequate.

    Presentations will be available online at the meeting page and also be posted in the E-Gov Web site: http://www.regulations.gov, at docket number PHMSA-2014-0014 within 30 days following the meeting.

    Authority:

    49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 and 49 CFR 1.97.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 3, 2015. Jeffrey D. Wiese, Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08115 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration [Docket No. PHMSA-2015-0105] Pipeline Safety: Potential for Damage to Pipeline Facilities Caused by Flooding, River Scour, and River Channel Migration AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; Issuance of Advisory Bulletin.

    SUMMARY:

    PHMSA is issuing this updated advisory bulletin to all owners and operators of gas and hazardous liquid pipelines to communicate the potential for damage to pipeline facilities caused by severe flooding. This advisory includes actions that operators should consider taking to ensure the integrity of pipelines in the event of flooding, river scour, and river channel migration.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Operators of pipelines subject to regulation by PHMSA should contact the appropriate PHMSA Region Office. The PHMSA Region Offices and their contact information are as follows:

    • Central Region: 816-329-3800, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin

    • Eastern Region: 609-989-2171, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia

    • Southern Region: 404-832-1147, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, and Tennessee

    • Southwest Region: 713-272-2859, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas

    • Western Region: 720-963-3160, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming

    Intrastate pipeline operators should contact the appropriate state pipeline safety authority. A list of state pipeline safety authorities is provided at: www.napsr.org

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Section 192.613(a) of the Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 190-199) states that “[e]ach operator shall have a procedure for continuing surveillance of its facilities to determine and take appropriate action concerning changes in class location, failures, leakage history, corrosion, substantial changes in cathodic protection requirements, and other unusual operating and maintenance conditions.” Section 192.613(b) further states that “[i]f a segment of pipeline is determined to be in unsatisfactory condition but no immediate hazard exists, the operator shall initiate a program to recondition or phase out the segment involved, or, if the segment cannot be reconditioned or phased out, reduce the maximum allowable operating pressure in accordance with § 192.619(a) and (b).”

    Likewise, § 195.401(b)(1) of the Pipeline Safety Regulations states that “[w]henever an operator discovers any condition that could adversely affect the safe operation of its pipeline system, it must correct the condition within a reasonable time. However, if the condition is of such a nature that it presents an immediate hazard to persons or property, the operator may not operate the affected part of the system until it has corrected the unsafe condition.” Section 195.401(b)(2) further states that “[w]hen an operator discovers a condition on a pipeline covered under [the integrity management requirements in] § 195.452, the operator must correct the condition as prescribed in § 195.452(h).” Severe flooding, river scour, and river channel migration are the types of unusual operating conditions that can adversely affect the safe operation of a pipeline and require corrective action under §§ 192.613(a) and 195.401(b).

    In addition, Part 194 requires operators of onshore oil pipelines to “include procedures and a list of resources for responding, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case discharge and to a substantial threat of such a discharge” under § 194.107(a). Per § 194.115, the operator must “identify, and ensure, by contract or other approved means, the resources necessary to remove, to the maximum extent practicable, a worst case discharge and to mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of a worst case discharge”.

    Furthermore, an operator must take additional preventative and mitigative measures beyond those already required in Parts 192, 194, and 195 to prevent a pipeline failure and to mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure per §§ 192.935, 194.107(a) and 195.452(i). An operator must base the additional measures on the threats the operator has identified for each pipeline segment. If an operator determines outside force damage (e.g., earth movement, floods) is a threat to the pipeline, the operator must take steps to minimize the probability of damage and the consequences of a release.

    PHMSA has released five Advisory Bulletins on this subject, with the earliest issued July 29, 1993, (ADB-93-03), and the most recent on July 27, 2011, (ADB-11-04; 76 FR 44985). Each of these bulletins followed an event that involved severe flooding that affected pipelines in the areas of rising waters. Four of the more notable events are briefly described below:

    On August 13, 2011, Enterprise Products Operating, LLC discovered a release of 28,350 gallons (675 barrels) of natural gasoline in the Missouri River in Iowa. The rupture, according to the metallurgical report, was the result of fatigue crack growth driven by vibrations in the pipe from vortex shedding.

    On July 1, 2011, ExxonMobil Pipeline Company experienced a pipeline failure near Laurel, Montana, resulting in the release of 63,000 gallons (1,500 barrels) of crude oil into the Yellowstone River. According to the results of PHMSA's accident investigation, the rupture was caused by channel migration and river bottom scour, leaving a large span of the pipeline exposed to prolonged current forces and debris washing downstream in the river. Those external forces damaged the exposed pipeline.

    On July 15, 2011, NuStar Pipeline Operating Partnership, L.P. reported a 4,200 gallon (100 barrels) anhydrous ammonia spill in the Missouri River in Nebraska requiring extensive environmental response and causing supply disruption. The 6-inch-diameter pipeline was exposed by scouring during extreme flooding.

    On January 17, 2015, a breach in the Bridger Pipeline Company's Poplar system resulted in another spill into the Yellowstone River near the town of Glendive, Montana, releasing an estimated 28,434 gallons (677 barrels) of crude oil into the river and impacting local water supplies. Preliminary information indicates over 100 feet of pipeline was exposed on the river bottom, and a release point was near a girth weld.

    As shown in these events, river bottom scour and channel migration may occur due to seasonal flooding, increased stream velocities, and man-made and natural river bank restrictions. River scour and channel migration may damage a pipeline as a result of additional stresses imposed on the pipe by undermining underlying support soils, exposing the pipeline to lateral water forces and impact from waterborne debris. Lateral water forces may cause excessive bending loads that lead to pipeline failures, and possible impact forces from debris in the river or harmonic vibrations from water rapidly passing over pipelines can also increase the potential for pipeline failures.

    Additionally, the safety of valves, regulators, relief sets, pressure sensors, and other facilities normally above ground or above water can be jeopardized when covered by water. Not only can these facilities become inoperable when submerged, but they are also at a greater risk of damage by outside forces, floating debris, river currents, and craft operating on the water. Boaters involved in rescue operations, emergency support functions, sightseeing, and other activities are generally not aware of the seriousness of an incident that could result from their craft damaging a pipeline facility that is unseen beneath the surface of the water. Depending on the size of the craft and the pipeline facility struck, significant pipeline damage may result.

    Although accidents at river crossings account for less than one percent of the total number of pipeline accidents, the consequences of a release in water can be much more severe because of the threats to drinking water supplies and the environment. Unlike hazardous liquid releases on land where it can be easier to respond to and contain spills, swift-moving river currents will carry hazardous liquids further downstream, potentially impacting much larger geographical areas and more communities. Product releases in rivers can create difficult, costly, and lengthy spill response and remediation scenarios and activities for operators, communities, and local, state, and Federal responders.

    II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB-2015-01)

    To: Owners and Operators of Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems.

    Subject: Potential for Damage to Pipeline Facilities Caused by Severe Flooding.

    Advisory: Severe flooding can adversely affect the safe operation of a pipeline. Operators need to direct their resources in a manner that will enable them to determine and mitigate the potential effects of flooding on their pipeline systems in accordance with applicable regulations. Operators are urged to take the following actions to prevent and mitigate damage to pipeline facilities and ensure public and environmental safety in areas affected by flooding:

    1. Utilize experts in river flow, such as hydrologists or fluvial geomorphologists, to evaluate a river's potential for scour or channel migration at each pipeline river crossing.

    2. Evaluate each pipeline crossing a river to determine the pipeline's installation method and determine if that method (and the pipeline's current condition) is sufficient to withstand the risks posed by anticipated flood conditions, river scour, or river channel migration. In areas prone to these conditions and risks, consider installing pipelines using horizontal directional drilling to help place pipelines below elevations of maximum scour and outside the limits of lateral channel migration.

    3. Determine the maximum flow or flooding conditions at rivers where pipeline integrity is at risk in the event of flooding (e.g., where scour can occur) and have contingency plans to shut down and isolate those pipelines when those conditions occur.

    4. Evaluate the accessibility of pipeline facilities and components that may be in jeopardy, such as valve settings, which are needed to isolate water crossings or other sections of pipelines.

    5. Extend regulator vents and relief stacks above the level of anticipated flooding as appropriate.

    6. Coordinate with emergency and spill responders on pipeline locations, crossing conditions, and the commodities transported. Provide maps and other relevant information to such responders so they can develop appropriate response strategies.

    7. Coordinate with other pipeline operators in flood areas and establish emergency response centers to act as a liaison for pipeline problems and solutions.

    8. Deploy personnel so that they will be in position to shut down, isolate, contain, or perform any other emergency action on an affected pipeline.

    9. Determine if facilities that are normally above ground (e.g., valves, regulators, relief sets, etc.) have become submerged and are in danger of being struck by vessels or debris and, if possible, mark such facilities with U.S. Coast Guard approval and an appropriate buoy.

    10. Perform frequent patrols, including appropriate overflights, to evaluate right-of-way conditions at water crossings during flooding and after waters subside. Report any flooding, either localized or systemic, to integrity staff to determine if pipeline crossings may have been damaged or would be in imminent jeopardy from future flooding.

    11. Have open communications with local and state officials to address their concerns regarding observed pipeline exposures, localized flooding, ice dams, debris dams, and extensive bank erosion that may affect the integrity of pipeline crossings.

    12. Following floods, and when safe river access is first available, determine if flooding has exposed or undermined pipelines because of new river channel profiles. This is best done by a depth of cover survey.

    13. Where appropriate, surveys of underwater pipe should include the use of visual inspection by divers or instrumented detection. Pipelines in recently flooded lands adjacent to rivers should also be evaluated to determine the remaining depth of cover. You should share information gathered by these surveys with affected landowners. Agricultural agencies may help to inform farmers of potential hazards from reduced cover over pipelines.

    14. Ensure that line markers are still in place or are replaced in a timely manner. Notify contractors, highway departments, and others involved in post-flood restoration activities of the presence of pipelines and the risks posed by reduced cover.

    If a pipeline has suffered damage or is shut-in as a precautionary measure due to flooding, the operator should advise the appropriate PHMSA regional office or state pipeline safety authority before returning the line to service, increasing its operating pressure, or otherwise changing its operating status. Furthermore, reporting a Safety-Related Condition as prescribed in §§ 191.23 and 195.55 may also be required.

    Authority:

    49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 and 49 CFR 1.97

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 6, 2015. Timothy P. Butters, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08148 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending March 28, 2015.

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier. Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 302. 201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further proceedings.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2015-0064.

    Date Filed: March 25, 2015.

    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope: April 15, 2015.

    Description: Application of Altius Aviation, LLC requesting authority to operate scheduled passenger service as a commuter air carrier.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2015-0065.

    Date Filed: March 26, 2015.

    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope: April 16, 2015.

    Description: Application of Air Baltic Corporation A/S (“AirBaltic”) requesting a foreign air carrier permit to authorize foreign air transportation to engage in: (i) Foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of persons, property and mail from any point or points behind any Member State of the European Union, via any point or points in any Member State and via intermediate points, to any point or points in the United States and beyond; (ii) foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of persons, property and mail between any point or points in the United States and any point or points in any member of the European Common Aviation Area; (iii) foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of cargo between any point or points in the United States and any other point or points; (iv) other charters pursuant to the prior approval requirements; and (v) transportation authorized by any additional route rights made available to European Union carriers under the U.S.-EU Air Transport Agreement in the future. AirBaltic also requests an exemption to the extent necessary to allow it to provide the services described above for a two-year period or until the requested permit authority becomes effective, whichever occurs first.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-1999-6663 and DOT-OST-2011-0076.

    Date Filed: March 24, 2015.

    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope: April 14, 2015.

    Description: Application of United Parcel Service Co. requesting an amendment of its U.S.-Mexico certificate of public convenience and necessity and a related exemption, as well as a designation under the U.S.-Mexico Air Transport Agreement authorizing it to provide scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between Dallas, Texas (DFW) and Mexico City, Mexico (MEX).

    Barbara J. Hairston, Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08147 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
    80 68 Thursday, April 9, 2015 Proposed Rules Part II Department of Homeland Security Coast Guard 33 CFR Parts 148, 149, and 150 Deepwater Ports; Proposed Rule DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Parts 148, 149, and 150 [Docket No. USCG-2012-0061] RIN 1625-AB92 Deepwater Ports AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes revisions to its regulations for the licensing, construction, design, equipment, and operation of deepwater ports, which are offshore fixed or floating structures, other than vessels, used as ports or terminals for the import or export of oil and natural gas. The proposed revisions would provide additional information, clarify existing regulations, provide additional regulatory flexibility, and add new requirements to ensure safety. The proposed rule would not affect the license to operate of any existing deepwater port, nor would it result in the licensing of any new deepwater port. This proposed rule furthers the Coast Guard's maritime safety and stewardship missions.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must either be submitted to our online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before July 8, 2015 or must reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2012-0061 using any one of the following methods:

    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.

    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Mr. Kevin Tone, Deepwater Ports Standards Division (CG-OES-4), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1441, 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 Contents for Preamble I. Public Participation and Request for Comments A. Submitting Comments B. Viewing Comments and Documents C. Privacy Act D. Public Meeting II. Abbreviations III. Executive Summary IV. Background V. Discussion of Proposed Rule VI. Regulatory Analyses A. Regulatory Planning and Review B. Small Entities C. Assistance for Small Entities D. Collection of Information E. Federalism F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act G. Taking of Private Property H. Civil Justice Reform I. Protection of Children J. Indian Tribal Governments K. Energy Effects L. Technical Standards M. Environment I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

    A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2012-0061), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the instructions on that Web site. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.

    We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments.

    B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the instructions on that Web site. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting 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. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

    C. Privacy Act

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

    D. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the docket using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. In your request, explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we decide to hold a public meeting, we will announce its time and place in a later notice in the Federal Register.

    II. Abbreviations ABS American Bureau of Shipping APPS Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement CE Certifying Entity CFR Code of Federal Regulations COA Certificate of Adequacy COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security DNV Det Norske Veritas DOI Department of the Interior DWPA Deepwater Port Act of 1974 EIA Energy Information Administration EIS Environmental Impact Statement E.O. Executive Order FR Federal Register FWS National Fish and Wildlife Service HDD Horizontal Directional Drilling LNG Liquefied Natural Gas LOOP Louisiana Offshore Oil Port MARAD Maritime Administration MARPOL 73/78 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating to that Convention MODU Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit MOU Memorandum of Understanding MSU Marine Safety Unit MTSA Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 NAICS North American Industry Classification System NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service OCMI Officer in Charge of Marine Inspection OMB Office of Management and Budget OPA 90 Oil Pollution Act of 1990 PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PLEM Pipeline End Manifold PMMP Prevention, Monitoring and Mitigation Program PRA Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Pub. L. Public Law ROD Record of Decision SMS Safety Management System SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea SPM-NGTS Single Point Mooring-Natural Gas Transfer System SPM-OTS Single Point Mooring-Oil Transfer System STL buoy Submerged turret loading buoy § Section symbol U.S.C. United States Code III. Executive Summary

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to revise existing Coast Guard regulations for deepwater ports. A deepwater port is a fixed or floating manmade structure, or a group of structures, other than a vessel, located beyond State seaward boundaries and used or intended for use as a port or terminal for the transportation, storage, and further handling of oil or natural gas for transportation to or from any State.1 The proposed revisions would expedite the deepwater port license application process by capitalizing on lessons learned from past license applications. They would also address recent changes in the natural gas industry by allowing the use of deepwater ports as export facilities.

    1See 33 U.S.C. 1502(9).

    The legal basis of this rulemaking is 33 U.S.C. 1504(a) and (b), which require the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to implement the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as amended (DWPA).2 Before 2003, the Coast Guard operated under the Department of Transportation, and the Secretary of Transportation's authority under § 1504 was delegated to the Coast Guard in 49 CFR 1.46. When the Coast Guard was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003, “the authorities and functions of the Secretary of Transportation relating” to the Coast Guard, including the Secretary of Transportation's authority relating to deepwater ports, also were transferred to DHS.3 The Secretary of Homeland Security has delegated the Secretary's regulatory authority under 33 U.S.C. 1504 to the Coast Guard.4 The Secretary of Transportation's authority to license deepwater ports 5 is delegated 6 to the Maritime Administrator.

    2 33 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.

    3See 6 U.S.C. 468(b).

    4See DHS Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(75).

    5 33 U.S.C. 1503(b).

    6 49 CFR 1.93(h).

    This NPRM proposes numerous small revisions to a complex regulatory scheme. Collectively, these revisions will provide applicants with additional information and clarity, additional regulatory flexibility, and new requirements to ensure safety. Above all, the revisions should help applicants assemble more complete applications, to help them meet the Coast Guard's regulatory requirements within the strict time limitations mandated by the DWPA and without costly suspensions of the licensing process. The proposed rule would not affect the license to operate of any existing deepwater port, nor would it result in the licensing of any new deepwater port.

    This NPRM would impose no new regulatory costs and should help future license applicants receive more efficient, faster processing of their applications. Some proposed revisions may give applicants more flexibility than they have under current regulations. Finally, some applicants may benefit from proposed revisions that would facilitate the licensing of export deepwater ports.

    IV. Background

    Deepwater ports are oil or natural gas import or export facilities, not exploration, development, or production facilities like drilling rigs.7 Deepwater ports are subject to the DWPA. When the DWPA was first enacted, it applied only to deepwater ports handling oil imports. Section 106 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 8 (MTSA) amended the DWPA to apply to natural gas imports as well. Section 312 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012 9 further amended the DWPA so that it now also authorizes deepwater ports for oil or natural gas exports. MARAD must license each deepwater port before it can be built and commissioned and begin operations, but MARAD consults the Coast Guard and other Federal agencies,10 as well as affected State governments, before issuing licenses. License applications are jointly processed by the Coast Guard and MARAD, and we conduct the necessary analysis to determine whether a proposed deepwater port will comply with the DWPA and to ensure compliance with other applicable laws, in particular the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Also, the Coast Guard provides the regulatory framework governing the application and licensing process as well as the design, construction, equipment, and operation of deepwater ports. Our deepwater port regulations in 33 CFR subchapter NN (parts 148, 149, and 150) were first issued in 1975, and were extensively revised in 2004 and 2006 to reflect the 2002 extension of the DWPA to natural gas.

    7See 33 CFR 140.10 (excluding deepwater ports from the definition of an Outer Continental Shelf facility).

    8 Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064.

    9 Public Law 112-213, 126 Stat. 1540.

    10 The Department of the Interior (DOI) advises license applicants that: (a) In accordance with 43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(5), to the extent that a proposed deepwater port's design includes subsurface storage on submerged lands of the Outer Continetal Shelf, that storage is subject to DOI's review and approval; (b) As a cooperating agency during a license application's processing, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) participate in the review of proposed deepwater ports; and (c) under BSEE regulations (30 CFR part 250, subpart J), a right-of-way granted by BSEE and a right-of-way rental amount may be required.

    Since our most recent substantive revision of subchapter NN,11 the Coast Guard has received eight applications to site, construct, and operate natural gas deepwater ports. Four applications were subsequently withdrawn by the applicants. Of the remaining four, two deepwater ports have been constructed, one has been issued a license to construct, and one has initial approval through a favorable Record of Decision (ROD) 12 from MARAD. All four were for natural gas imports. In processing these four applications, the Coast Guard and other Federal agencies have identified additional, specific types of information that are necessary to ensure a timely review of, and decision on, deepwater port applications. During the application review process, and after the construction and operation of new deepwater ports, we gained additional insight into the technical and operational requirements that will help ensure operations are conducted efficiently and in a manner that furthers safety, security, and environmental protection. The DWPA, 33 U.S.C. 1504(g), provides a 240-day “clock” within which license applications must be processed (from publication of the notice of initial application to the final public hearing). To ensure compliance with the DWPA and NEPA, those wanting to build and operate a deepwater port must provide complex and highly technical information with their license applications. Under 33 U.S.C. 1504(c)(1), the Coast Guard has 21 days in which to determine whether an application appears to contain all the necessary information. If the application appears to be incomplete, the Coast Guard informs the applicant as to its deficiencies, and takes no further action until the deficiencies are corrected. If the application appears to be complete, the Coast Guard must publish a notice of the application and a summary of the plans in the Federal Register. Long after this initial determination of completeness, however, we often find that we need additional information to complete a proper analysis of the proposed deepwater port's environmental impact, and the applicant is required by 33 U.S.C 1504(c)(2)(M) to provide that information. Our regulations 13 make it clear that the need to obtain important additional information “stops the clock,” extending the 240-day deadline by the length of time needed to obtain the additional information.

    11 71 FR 57644; Sep. 29, 2006.

    12 A Record of Decision states what the agency's decision is; identifies all alternatives considered by the agency, specifies the alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferable; and states whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected have been adopted, and if not, why they were not. See 40 CFR 1505.2.

    13 At 33 CFR 148.107(c)(3).

    V. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule draws on the lessons we have learned about efficiencies in the license application review process and in building and operating safe and efficient deepwater ports. In developing this proposed rule, we have consulted with MARAD and other Federal agencies that work with us on deepwater port issues, and we will continue this consultation as we develop a final rule.

    This proposed rule would primarily clarify existing requirements or provide more information about how those requirements intersect with the requirements of other Federal agencies and State governments that have roles in the licensing and operation of deepwater ports. The intent of this proposed rule is to reduce the number of times the “clock is stopped” pursuant to our regulations, thereby reducing the time needed to reach decisions on applications. Although we propose a few new requirements, they are likely to impose no new regulatory costs because they track with industry's current behavior. We also propose several changes that should provide industry with additional regulatory flexibility. Our proposals would apply to any applications received after the effective date of the final rule. The rule would not affect the license to operate any existing deepwater port, nor would they result in the licensing of any new deepwater port.

    The proposed rule aligns with directives in several Executive Orders (E.O.s). Section 3(a)(1) of E.O. 12988 14 requires agencies to review proposed regulations to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, and our proposed rule will clarify ambiguities that have come to light since we last amended our current regulations. Because the proposed rule draws on lessons learned from applying our current regulations, it helps make those regulations more effective and less burdensome and is therefore in line with E.O. 13563.15 In light of the recent surge in U.S. natural gas production, and now that the DWPA permits deepwater ports to export oil and natural gas, our proposed rule may also facilitate the development or conversion 16 of existing deepwater ports to export U.S. natural gas by clarifying the deepwater port application process and lessening the likelihood of time-consuming delays in that process. Therefore it may contribute to the job creation and economic benefits that are goals of E.O. 13605.17

    14 “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 5, 1996).

    15 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, ”76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), § 6(b).

    16 An application for the conversion of an existing import facility to one adapted for export would require the submission of a new application fee. The conversion application would need to address all the same issues addressed in an original application.

    17 “Supporting Safe and Responsible Development of Unconventional Domestic Natural Gas Resources,” 77 FR 23107 (Apr. 17, 2012).

    The changes we propose for part 148 focus on providing deepwater port license applicants with clearer information about the information we require, so that applicants will be less likely to encounter “stopped clocks.” We propose reorganizing part 149, which addresses the complex process of designing, constructing, and equipping deepwater ports. Other changes in part 149 would clarify its requirements or adapt terminology to the reality that no two deepwater ports use identical design elements. Most of the procedural changes we propose would affect the deepwater port operations requirements in part 150. In addition to clarifying part 150's requirements and providing more information, we propose changes (in line with current industry practice) that would ensure that future deepwater ports continue to meet acceptable levels of safety.

    Table 1 lists each section that we propose adding or amending, and briefly explains our rationale for the proposal. It omits the nonsubstantive redesignation of specific sections as part of the reorganization of part 149, which we discuss in the table, and the nonsubstantive insertion of “but not limited to” in lists, to emphasize their non-exclusive nature.

    Table 1—Changes Proposed for 33 CFR Subchapter NN Section Change Nature of change Discussion PART 148 3 Revise descriptions of each agency's authority Informational Based on latest statutory or interagency allocation of functions. We would describe, not change, that allocation. 5 “Accommodation module” Add definition Term figures in proposed changes. “Construction” Revise definition Clarify that Coast Guard oversight applies throughout the deepwater port lifecycle by emphasizing that construction applies to any activity incidental to building, repairing, or expanding a deepwater port. “Deepwater port” Revise definition Align with current statutory language, which allows deepwater ports to export as well as import oil or natural gas. “Deepwater port security plan” Add definition Term figures in proposed changes. “Engineering geological survey” Revise definition Clarify that the necessary analysis considers all geological factors and is not limited to hydrographics. Coast Guard's experience is that the scope of this analysis has been confusing in the past. “Flexible riser and umbilical” Add definition Term figures in proposed changes. “Lease block” Revise definition Simplify statutory citations. “Major conversion” Transfer definition Transfer from part 149 without substantive change. “Marine Safety Unit (MSU) Commander” Add definition Updated Coast Guard internal organization. “Marine site” Revise language Clarify meaning of “including.” “Maritime Administration” Revise definition Updated MARAD information. “Mile” Add definition Clarify that subchapter NN references to miles mean nautical miles. “Operator” Revise definition Clarify that the operator may be the licensee's designee and not the licensee itself. “Person in charge” Revise definition Clarify definition. “PIC” Add definition Add separate definition to help distinguish “person in charge” from “PIC.” “Pipeline” Add definition Define to distinguish portion of interest to Coast Guard from equipment regulated by Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. “Pipeline end manifold” Add definition Define to distinguish portion of interest to Coast Guard from equipment regulated by Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). “Prevention, monitoring, and mitigation program” Add definition Term figures in proposed changes. “Safety zone” Revise definition Clarify that a deepwater port is the facility at issue. “Service space” Transfer definition Transfer from part 149 without substantive change. “Single point mooring oil transfer system” Revise definition Clarify and distinguish terms that are sometimes confused. “Single point mooring natural gas transfer system” Revise definition Clarify and distinguish terms that are sometimes confused. “Sleeping space” Transfer definition Transfer from part 149 without substantive change. “Submerged turret loading buoy” Add definition Term figures in proposed changes. “Vessel” Revise definition Conform to definition used in 1 U.S.C. 3. 8 Certifying entities (CEs) Provide additional regulatory flexibility Operators are currently allowed to use CEs to assist with post-licensing technical matters. We would also allow license applicants to use CEs during the application process, to help identify information gaps and resolve technical questions. 105(g)(1)(i) Describe MARAD as acting in consultation with the Coast Guard, instead of the Coast Guard acting in concurrence with MARAD Informational We would more accurately reflect MARAD's lead role for matters regarding the financial responsibility of a deepwater port application. 105(g)(2)(iii) Change “operator” to “licensee,” as the party responsible for deepwater port removal costs Clarification Financial liability rests with a deepwater port's licensee, not with the operator, who may be only the licensee's designee. 105(i)(1) Change “is” to “will be” Style Style change. 105(j) Provide additional information about coastal zone management Informational We would give license applicants more detailed information, including a reference to applicable National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration regulations, to help applicants more quickly establish compliance with 33 U.S.C. 1503(c)(9)'s requirement for an approved coastal zone management program under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. 105(k) Provide an alternative to the use of a professional surveyor Provide additional regulatory flexibility Delay in securing the services of a registered professional surveyor has “stopped the clock” in at least one instance. We would allow the use of others with equivalent professional competency. 105(m)(1)(i) Revise provisions relating to fixed and floating structures Clarification We would delete language concerning connected actions, because it is redundant with the requirement in 33 CFR 148.105(l) to provide data for onshore storage areas, pipelines, and refineries. 105(m)(1)(iii) Revise provisions relating to anchorages and mooring areas Clarification We would clarify that anchorages and mooring areas can be used during a deepwater port's construction as well as after it becomes operational. 105(m)(2) Revise description of required reconnaissance hydrographic survey Clarification We would delete some survey specifications because MARAD describes the specific information it requires in the license conditions it sets for individual deepwater ports. Allow exceptions to 5-year limit on age of data Provide additional regulatory flexibility The proposed change would allow the use of older data, with Coast Guard approval, which would be granted so long as newer data is provided for any specific locations having a high degree of hydrographic variability. 105(m)(3) Add language for meteorological and oceanographic (“MetOcean”) data Revision MetOcean data is essential for analyzing a proposed deepwater port's environmental impact. If it is not included with the license application, we currently require the applicant to provide it as “additional information” under 33 CFR 148.107. We would add the need to include MetOcean data in the initial application, to better inform applicants and reduce the likelihood of “clock stoppage.” 105(m)(4) Add language for vessel traffic data Revision Vessel traffic data is essential for analyzing a proposed deepwater port's environmental impact and for the Coast Guard's analysis of risk mitigation. If it is not included with the license application, we currently require the applicant to provide it as “additional information” under 33 CFR 148.107. We would add the need to include vessel traffic data in the initial application, to better inform applicants and reduce the likelihood of “clock stoppage.” 105(n) Add language for engineering geological survey (presently soil survey) data Revision We would clarify that full geological information, not just soil data, is essential for analyzing a proposed deepwater port's environmental impact. If it is not included with the license application, we currently require the applicant to provide it as “additional information” under 33 CFR 148.107. We would add the need to include geological survey data in the initial application, to better inform applicants and reduce the likelihood of “clock stoppage.” Allow exceptions to 5-year limit on age of data Provide additional regulatory flexibility The proposed change would allow the use of older data, with Coast Guard approval. Provide an alternative to the use of a professional engineer Provide additional regulatory flexibility Delay in securing the services of a professional engineer has “stopped the clock” in at least one instance. We would allow the use of others with equivalent professional competency. 105(s)(6)(iv) Add “regasification” to existing language Revision We would clarify that information about the methods the applicant expects to use in regasifying natural gas prior to transmission is essential for analyzing a proposed deepwater port's environmental impact. If it is not included with the license application, we currently require the applicant to provide it as “additional information” under 33 CFR 148.107. We would add the need to include regasification data in the initial application, to better inform applicants and reduce the likelihood of “clock stoppage.” 105(t) Add recommendation for PHMSA consultation Informational We would provide license applicants with additional information, and we would encourage them to consult with PHMSA, to help facilitate an applicant's ability to comply with PHMSA requirements for pipeline safety. 105(y) Add language for risk and consequence assessment Informational A license applicant's risk and consequence assessment is essential for analyzing a proposed deepwater port's environmental impact and is currently subject to Coast Guard validation. We would provide additional information about methods that the Coast Guard may use to conduct that validation, including the conduct of an independent assessment by a third party selected by the Coast Guard. We would also restate the Coast Guard's existing authority under 33 CFR 148.107 to require the applicant to provide “additional information” when necessary. 105(z) Add language for NEPA alternatives Clarification This paragraph currently requires license applicants to provide an environmental analysis sufficient to meet the requirements of NEPA. Under NEPA, environmental analysis must include consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives to key aspects of the action being analyzed. If alternatives are not discussed in the initial license application, we currently require the applicant to provide it as “additional information” under 33 CFR 148.107. We would clarify the need to discuss alternatives in the initial application, to better inform applicants and reduce the likelihood of “clock stoppage.” 105(ff) Add language for International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating to that Convention (MARPOL 73/78) Clarification A license to operate a deepwater port is granted only if it is determined that the applicant “can and will comply with applicable laws, regulations, and license conditions.” 33 U.S.C. 1503(c)(2). MARPOL, and MARPOL-implementing regulations in 33 CFR part 158, are applicable to deepwater ports, and a Certificate of Adequacy (COA) is required to demonstrate compliance with part 158. If the COA is not requested in the initial license application, we currently require the applicant to provide it as “additional information” under 33 CFR 148.107. We would clarify the need to request the Certificate in the initial application, to better inform applicants and reduce the likelihood of “clock stoppage.” 107(b) Add references to MARAD Clarification We would clarify that the Coast Guard may request additional information on behalf of MARAD as well as on the Coast Guard's own behalf. 107(c)-(e) Revise (c) and add (d) and (e), regarding “clock stoppage” Clarification Paragraph (c) of this section currently allows the Coast Guard to suspend the processing of a license application indefinitely (“stop the clock”) in order to obtain additional information. We would provide additional information to clarify and help applicants better understand how “stopping the clock” works. This proposed change should be read along with the proposed change to 33 CFR 148.276 and 148.283 relating to suspension and withdrawal of an application. 125(c) Add “additional environmental analysis” to existing language Clarification Under 33 U.S.C. 1504(h)(1), license applicants must “reimburse the United States and the appropriate adjacent coastal State for any additional costs incurred in processing an application.” We would add, as a clarification, the need for additional environmental analysis as an example of when additional costs will be incurred. A past applicant's change in plans for the proposed deepwater port raised the potential need for additional environmental analysis. 209(a) Remove reference to interagency memorandum of understanding (MOU) Informational We would delete a reference to an expired MOU that can no longer be consulted for the current list of all Federal agencies involved with deepwater ports. 211(a) Revise language describing the need for changes in applications Clarification This paragraph currently requires a license applicant to promptly notify the Coast Guard of any changes to its application. We would clarify that we consider any circumstance that makes statements in the application no longer accurate to be a “change” requiring prompt notification. 211(b) Revise language describing how changes are made in applications Clarification As currently worded, this paragraph may imply that any substantial change requires a license applicant to completely revise its application. We would clarify that our existing practice generally is to allow the applicant simply to amend its application to make the change. Add language concerning NEPA scoping and additional public comment Informational We would inform license applicants that under NEPA and other existing laws, a substantial change in an application could trigger the need for additional NEPA scoping or additional public comment on the application. 214 Add provision for resubmission of a withdrawn or denied application Informational We would provide additional information about the conditions under which a license applicant can address concerns raised by its initial application and resubmit the application, with the Coast Guard waiving certain Subpart B application requirements for the re-application. 215 Redesignate (d) as (c)(5) and add “proposed deepwater” to existing language Clarification We would clarify that (d) is a continuation of (c) and relates to a proposed deepwater port. 217(b)-(d) Revise description of respective Coast Guard and MARAD roles in the designation of an Adjacent Coastal State Informational We would state that MARAD consults with the Coast Guard, but makes the actual Adjacent Coastal State designation. 222(b) Revise description of respective Coast Guard and MARAD roles in giving notice of Adjacent Coastal State hearings Informational We would clarify that MARAD, not the Coast Guard, has the existing responsibility for publishing notices of public hearings or meetings in Adjacent Coastal States. 228 Revise description of respective Coast Guard and MARAD roles with respect to formal evidentiary hearings Informational We would clarify that MARAD, not the Coast Guard, has the existing responsibility for any formal evidentiary hearings involving deepwater ports relating to specific and material factual issues related to the licensing of a deepwater port. Existing Coast Guard regulations, 33 CFR 148.230-148.256, provide a regulatory framework for such hearings; however, because MARAD, not the Coast Guard, is the licensing authority, we propose deleting these regulations. 276 Revise section describing the DWPA timeline for action on a license application Informational The revision would provide more information about the DWPA timeline for processing license applications, and about suspensions of the timeline. We informally provide this additional information today. (The revisions do not alter the statutory timeline.) This proposed change should be read along with the proposed changes to 33 CFR 148.107 and 148.283 relating to suspension and withdrawal of an application. 277(d) Provide additional information about the time period when the Governor of an Adjacent Coastal State may transmit his or her approval or disapproval of a proposed deepwater port application Informational We would add more information about the existing timeline for the Governor of an Adjacent Coastal State to approve or disapprove a proposed deepwater port application. 283 Substitute provisions for treating an application as withdrawn for provisions concerning an application's suspension Procedural change 33 CFR 148.107(c) and this section currently both provide for indefinitely suspending the processing of a license application if it is missing essential information. We would make it clear that, if there is no reasonable progress in securing the missing information, indefinite suspension may lead to the application being treated as withdrawn. This proposed change should be read along with the proposed changes to 33 CFR 148.107 and 148.276 relating to suspension. 405(c)(2) Refer to Bureau of Offshore Energy Management (BOEM) guidance Informational This paragraph currently requires a license applicant to give notice of certain acoustic profiling activities, which must take place “within specified limits.” We would inform applicants that those limits currently are provided by BOEM guidance, thereby making it easier for applicants to determine what limits are specified. Subpart G Redesignate 33 CFR 148.600 and 148.605 as subpart G of part 148 Nonsubstantive reorganization We would give added prominence to these two sections, which have been of interest to several license applicants. 600 Provide more information about deepwater port financial liability limits under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) Informational This section currently states that deepwater port financial liability limits are set in accordance with OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4)). Several license applicants have requested more information, and our proposed change would provide details on the current process for setting limits. 605 Provide more information about deepwater port financial liability limits under OPA 90 Informational This section currently refers to the provisions of OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4)) for adjusting a deepwater port's financial liability limit. We would respond to several requests from license applicants for more details on the current process for adjusting limits. That process, with the relevant risk and economic analysis criteria, was described in the NPRM that proposed lowering the liability limit for the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (60 FR 7652 at 7653, Feb. 8, 1995; final rule 60 FR 39849, Aug. 4, 1995). Subpart H Redesignate current subpart G as new subpart H of part 148 Nonsubstantive reorganization This proposed change is necessitated by our proposed designation of 33 CFR 148.600 and 148.605 as new subpart G. 707(b) Revise Clarification We would more closely align the wording of this section with terminology familiar to NEPA practitioners. We would also clarify that license applicants are currently required to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to their proposed deepwater port plans. 707(b)(1) Provide more information about the scope of environmental evaluation Informational We would provide license applicants with more complete information about the scope of environmental evaluation and align wording with terminology familiar to NEPA practitioners. 715 intro Add “reasonable range of alternatives” language Clarification We would clarify that license applicants are required to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to their proposed deepwater port plans. 715(a) Provide more information about the scope of environmental evaluation Informational We would provide license applicants with more complete information about the scope of environmental evaluation. 725 intro Add “reasonable range of alternatives” language Clarification We would clarify that license applicants are required to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to their proposed deepwater port plans. 730 intro Add “reasonable range of alternatives” language Clarification We would clarify that license applicants are required to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to their proposed deepwater port plans. 730(a) Revise Informational This paragraph currently refers to appropriate Adjacent Coastal State agencies. We would substitute a specific cross reference to 33 CFR 148.105(j), where we propose adding detailed information about Adjacent Coastal States. 735 intro Add “reasonable range of alternatives” language Clarification We would clarify that license applicants are required to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to their proposed deepwater port plans. 737 Replace list with Web site reference Informational This section currently contains a lengthy and non-exclusive list of environmental statutes and E.O.s of potential interest to license applicants. We would replace that list with a reference to a Coast Guard Web site where more current information is maintained and available to the public. PART 149 Part 149 organization Reorganize Nonsubstantive reorganization We would reorganize this part, redesignating and renaming some sections and providing a more sequential structure for existing deepwater port design, construction, and equipment requirements. Subpart A would contain general information, subpart B would contain general requirements for design, construction, operations, and equipment requirements, and the remaining subparts C through F would contain specific equipment requirements. 5 Replace definitions with cross reference to 33 CFR 148.5 Nonsubstantive reorganization This section currently contains 4 definitions. We would move all subchapter NN definitions to 33 CFR 148.5. 15 Remove Nonsubstantive reorganization This section currently describes the process for submitting deepwater port design or construction alterations. As part of the nonsubstantive reorganization of part 149, we would delete this section and transfer its substance to 33 CFR 149.54. 20(a) (current 610(a)) Add “or submerged turret loading (STL) buoy” to existing language Technology update We would insert a reference to STL buoys, which are significant deepwater port components not in existence when we last revised our regulations, and the details of the construction of which we currently require deepwater port operators to provide. 51 (current 615) Provide for use of foreign engineers Provide additional regulatory flexibility We would amend paragraph (b) to allow the use of foreign engineers who may not be registered professional engineers, if they possess equivalent qualifications. 52 (current 625) Revise (b) Provide additional regulatory flexibility We would insert a reference to CEs, reflecting our proposal (see table entry for 33 CFR 148.8) to allow greater use of CEs. Add (d) Clarification We would add language from current 33 CFR 149.650, to clarify the existing procedure by which a license applicant works with the Coast Guard to determine which deepwater port components require classification society certification. That determination will likely be different for each deepwater port, given the potential variability between deepwater port designs. We would also add language to encourage (but not require) early coordination between the applicant and the Coast Guard, because of the potential value of early coordination for expediting the design process. 54 Add Nonsubstantive reorganization We would move the text from existing § 149.15 to the revised subpart B to consolidate requirements for design into one subpart. 57 Add Informational We would add this section for the benefit of license applicants, to provide them with more information about our existing process for reviewing and approving a deepwater port's design, construction, and commissioning. 58 Add Clarification We would add this section to clarify that our existing practice is to allow a license applicant to use certifying entities during the design and construction of a deepwater port as well as after the deepwater port is licensed, and to describe the CE's role in various phases of the deepwater port's lifespan. 63(a) (current 660(a)) Substitute “manned deepwater port” for “pumping platform complex” Clarification The proposed change standardizes terminology applicable to all deepwater ports regardless of design or cargo. There is no change in applicability because all manned deepwater ports are pumping platform complexes. 64(b) (current 140(b)) Add “facilities, vessels approaching the safety zone” to existing language Clarification Provides clarification of who the vessel would be in communication with to ensure communications are occurring between the vessel and the shoreside facility for purposes of situational awareness. 65 intro, (b) (current 665 intro, (b)) Substitute “manned deepwater port” for “pumping platform complex” Clarification The proposed change standardizes terminology applicable to all deepwater ports regardless of design or cargo. There is no change in applicability because all manned deepwater ports are pumping platform complexes. 67(a) (current 675(a)) Substitute “Each” for “For a,” remove “each pumping platform complex,” and substitute “deepwater port” for “complex” Clarification The proposed change standardizes terminology applicable to all deepwater ports regardless of design or cargo. There is no change in applicability because the one existing manned deepwater port is a pumping platform complex. 68(a) (current 680(a)) Add “manned” before “deepwater” in existing language Clarification We would clarify that this requirement applies only to manned deepwater ports. 70 (current 690) Substitute “specified” for “outlined” Clarification The requirements are specified and are not optional, as “outlined” would imply. 77(a) (current 697(a)) Substitute “operator's” for “owner's” Clarification We would clarify that because the operator is in charge of day-to-day operations, the operator is responsible for maintaining all documentation. 115 (current 110) Substitute “remotely” for “from the pumping platform complex” Clarification This section currently requires pipeline end manifolds to have shutoff valves that can be operated both manually and remotely from a pumping platform complex. Since not every deepwater port has a pumping platform complex, we would replace the reference to such a complex with the word “remotely.” 130(a) (current 125(a)) Substitute “marine transfer area of a deepwater port” for “pumping platform complex” Clarification Only the single existing manned deepwater port has a pumping platform complex. The proposed change substitutes a generic term common to manned or unmanned deepwater ports. 135 (current 130) In (b) introductory language add “described in paragraph (a) of this section” Clarification Reference to paragraph (a) of same section. In (b)(1) and (b)(2) substitute “marine transfer area of a deepwater port” for “pumping platform complex” Clarification The proposed change standardizes terminology applicable to all deepwater ports regardless of design or cargo. There is no change in applicability because all marine transfer areas are pumping platform complexes. Revised terminology provides greater clarity. In (b)(2) add “described” Clarification Clarification and reference to paragraph (b)(3) of the section. 206 Add Harmonization We would adapt existing lifesaving equipment requirements for mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs). 302 (current 402) Revise Clarification We would transfer qualifying language from the end to the beginning of the section. 303 (current 403) Revise heading Clarification We would revise the heading to clarify who needs the information provided by this section. 304 (current 404) Revise heading Clarification We would revise the heading to clarify who needs the information provided by this section. Current 306-315 Remove Nonsubstantive reorganization These sections currently describe survival craft and rescue boat requirements. As part of the nonsubstantive reorganization of part 149, we would delete these sections and transfer their substance to 33 CFR part 149, subpart D. 315(a) (current 415(a)) Substitute “manned deepwater port” for “pumping platform complex” Clarification The proposed change standardizes terminology applicable to all deepwater ports regardless of design or cargo. There is no change in applicability because all manned deepwater ports are pumping platform complexes. 410(a) (current 510(a)) Substitute “Coast Guard District Commander in the area where the deepwater port will be built” for “Commandant (CG-5P)” Clarification We would clarify that the District Commander approves applications to establish a private aid to navigation. 480(a) (current 580(a)) Remove “of a pumping platform complex” Clarification The proposed change standardizes terminology applicable to all deepwater ports regardless of design or cargo. 485(a) (current 585(a)) Substitute “deepwater port” for “pumping platform complex” Clarification The proposed change standardizes terminology applicable to all deepwater ports regardless of design or cargo. There is no change in applicability because all manned deepwater ports are pumping platform complexes. 650 Remove Clarification; Nonsubstantive reorganization We would transfer the substance of this provision to § 149.52(d), and revise it to apply to all deepwater ports regardless of design or cargo. PART 150 10 In (b), remove reference to part 148 approval of manuals Correction We would remove this incorrect reference. Approval of manuals is addressed in part 150. Revise (c) and redesignate (d) and (e) Clarification We would remove existing (c) because the process is described in detail in proposed § 150.25. Existing (d) and (e) would be redesignated as (c) and (d), respectively. Add new (e) Clarification The proposed change would make explicit in our regulations that the Coast Guard's current practice is to review the operations manual every five years, in conjunction with our review of the environmental impact statement (EIS) (the Council on Environmental Quality recommends that, as a rule of thumb, the EIS be carefully reexamined no later than once every five years—see https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/30-40.HTM#32). 15 In (i)(4)(vii), substitute “zones and areas described under subpart J of this part” for “a safety zone, area to be avoided, and anchorage area” Clarification We would clarify that the procedures described must account for any protective zone or area that could apply, regardless of a deepwater port's design or cargo. Add new (o) Informational Deepwater ports are ports subject to U.S. jurisdiction and used by oceangoing tankers greater than 400 gross tons, and as such their operators must comply with 33 CFR 158.135, which requires ports to hold certificates of adequacy (or waivers), evidencing their capability to receive regulated substances. For informational purposes, we would restate that requirement here. Revise (y) (current (x)) Informational Under 33 CFR 106.410 and 106.415, security plans must be periodically audited, and reviewed every 5 years by the Coast Guard. For informational purposes, we would restate those requirements here. Revise (bb) (current (aa)) Clarification This change would reflect MARAD's current policy, requiring each deepwater port to maintain a prevention, monitoring, and mitigation program (PMMP) as a license condition. Add (cc) Clarification MARAD currently requires, as a license condition, each deepwater port to comply with 49 CFR 192.605 and with other applicable PHMSA regulations in 49 CFR parts 190-199. We would make that requirement explicit in our regulations. 25 Revise heading Clarification We would amend for better clarity. Add (c)(1) Clarification We would clarify the existing local authority to approve or reject revisions to the operations manual. Revise (c)(2)(current (d)) Clarification We would clarify the existing local authority to approve or reject revisions to the operations manual. Revise (e)(current (f)) Clarification We would clarify the existing local authority to approve or reject revisions to the operations manual. Add new (f) Clarification We would make explicit the existing authority of other Federal agencies to propose operations manual amendments to the Coast Guard. 30 Revise Clarification We would update Coast Guard organizational terminology and clarify what our current process is for coordinating with other Federal agencies. 35 Revise Informational Updated Coast Guard internal organization. 40 Add paragraph (b) Nonsubstantive reorganization We would consolidate current 33 CFR 150.40 and 150.45 into a single section dealing with deviations from the operations manual. In new (b), we would update references to Coast Guard internal organization. 45 Remove Nonsubstantive reorganization We would transfer the substance of this section to § 150.40. Text from existing § 150.45 now in proposed § 150.40(b). 50 Revise heading Clarification The proposed change would reduce the risk of confusing a deepwater port with an Outer Continental Shelf facility. 100 Add (b) Clarification We would make explicit the current Coast Guard practice of sometimes allowing, for reasons of government economy, representatives from other Federal agencies to accompany Coast Guard inspectors on inspection visits to deepwater ports. 105 Revise Clarification We would clarify the existing procedure for proposing a self-inspection program; to make it clear that it is the operator, not the owner, who performs the duties required by this section; and to make explicit the existing Coast Guard regulatory responsibility to validate the contents and results of deepwater port self-inspections. 107 Add Procedural change We would add this section to require deepwater port operators to notify the Coast Guard when a Federal or State agency schedules an inspection and keep inspection records, both of which operators currently do without their being formally required. We would also make it explicit that, as a matter of government economy, Coast Guard personnel sometimes accompany Federal or State inspectors on inspection visits. 110 Add “or of changes in class status.” to existing language Procedural change We would require deepwater port operators to notify us of changes in the status of classification society-approved components, which may present safety issues that warrant adjustment to the deepwater port's operations. Operators currently provide this notification without being formally required to do so. 225 Add second sentence Clarification This section currently requires appropriate training for deepwater port personnel. We would clarify our expectation, which is in line with current practice at the one existing manned deepwater port, that all personnel will receive basic safety training. 380 Substitute “ships routing measures” for the example “(e.g., no anchoring area)” from Table 150.380(a) Clarification We would provide greater technical accuracy and use familiar International Maritime Organization terminology. Remove “(for example an SPM)” from Table 150.380(a) Clarification Because the surface components used by deepwater ports vary so widely, we would remove an example that may confuse some license applicants. Revise (b) Clarification We would update references to Coast Guard internal organization. 435(b) Add “unless” clause Provide additional regulatory flexibility We would allow operations to continue during an electrical storm so long as they are conducted in compliance with appropriate safety provisions contained in the operations manual. 715 Add reference to 33 CFR 66.01-11 Clarification Deepwater port lights are private aids to navigation and therefore subject to 33 CFR 66.01-11. We would make that explicit in deepwater port regulations. 720 Add reference to 33 CFR 67.10 Clarification Would clarify that other existing Coast Guard regulations for sound signals still apply. 812 Add “and the environment” Clarification Coast Guard marine casualty regulations that currently apply to vessels and facilities, including deepwater ports, protect environmental safety as well as the safety of life and property; see, e.g., 33 CFR 140.1, 46 CFR 4.03-1. We would make explicit the need to consider environmental damage in connection with this section. 830 Revise Procedural change This section currently requires the one existing oil deepwater port to report oil pollution incidents in accordance with 33 CFR part 135, for which the underlying authority may have been repealed. (See Coast Guard notice of inquiry, 76 FR 67385; Nov. 1, 2011; a follow-on rulemaking has begun under RIN 1625-AA03 and docket number USCG-2004-17697.) We would require reports to be made in accordance with 33 CFR part 153 subpart B, which has reporting requirements similar to those in part 135. We would also restate the existing 33 CFR 135.307 requirements for the contents of pollution reports. 915(a) Add “or the environment” Clarification Coast Guard marine casualty regulations that currently apply to vessels and facilities, including deepwater ports, protect environmental safety as well as the safety of life and property; see, e.g., 33 CFR 140.1, 46 CFR 4.03-1. We would make explicit the need to consider environmental damage in connection with this section. V. Regulatory Analyses

    The Coast Guard developed this proposed rule after considering the statutes and E.O.s related to rulemaking that are discussed in this part.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This notice of proposed rulemaking has been designated a “significant regulatory action” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    The Coast Guard proposes revisions to its regulations for the licensing, construction, design, equipment, and operation of deepwater ports, which are offshore fixed or floating structures, other than vessels, used as ports or terminals for the import or export of oil and natural gas. The proposed revisions would provide additional information, clarify existing regulations, provide additional regulatory flexibility, and add new requirements to ensure safety.

    One objective of the proposed rule is to ensure that adequate information is submitted with a deepwater port application. Through the experience of processing past applications, Coast Guard and other Federal agencies have identified additional, specific types of information that are necessary to ensure a timely review of, and decision on, deepwater port applications. For past applications, this additional information has been requested during the review process, causing delays in the review and approval of applications. Specifying that the additional information is required at the beginning of the process will not increase the application process burden, but is expected to result in more efficient and timely reviews of any future applications.

    Further, the proposed rule codifies various technical and operational requirements. During the application review process, and after the actual construction and operation of new deepwater ports, the Coast Guard gained additional insight into the technical and operational requirements that will help ensure operations are conducted efficiently and in a manner that furthers safety, security, and environmental protection. These technical and operational requirements are currently standard industry practice or are existing requirements (e.g., from another agency, etc.). The proposed rule consolidates these requirements to facilitate understanding and compliance of deepwater port owners and operators.

    Table 2 below provides a summary of the final rule's costs and benefits.

    Table 2—Summary of the Proposed Rule's Impacts Category Summary Applicability Deepwater ports in waters beyond the territorial limits of the United States. Affected Population Future deepwater port applicants 3 existing deepwater ports. Cost Impacts No additional costs identified. Benefits More efficient and timely reviews of deepwater port applications. Consolidation of technical and operating requirements for existing deepwater ports. Potential cost savings from the following provisions: 1. § 148.8 Nominate CE. 2. § 148.105 Equivalent means of certifying accuracy of maps. 3. § 148.707. 4. § 149.51 Allows foreign national engineers. 5. § 149.52 Allows for adoption of classification society standards. 6. § 150.435 Authorizes continuation of cargo transfer operations during electrical storm. 7. § 150.15 Limits scope of audits to modifications. Affected Population

    One oil deepwater port began operation before 2006. Since 2006, the Coast Guard has processed, or is processing, eight deepwater port applications to site, construct, and operate deepwater ports. After review of those applications, two LNG deepwater ports have been constructed, one has been issued a license to construct, and one has initial approval through a favorable ROD from MARAD. The applicants for the other four applications have withdrawn their applications. The population of currently operating deepwater ports is three: the one pre-2006 oil port and two LNG ports.

    The potential number of additional deepwater port applications over the next 10 years is dependent on changing market conditions and economic forces. The existing deepwater ports were built when the forecasts for imports of LNG to the United States, such as those made by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), were predicting high levels of LNG imports. With recent changes in the natural gas and oil markets, EIA now projects continued decline in LNG imports and increasing volumes of LNG exports.18 The financial and technical feasibility of using deepwater ports for LNG exports has not yet been demonstrated, making a projection of the number of future deepwater port applications difficult. The Coast Guard, for the purpose of this rulemaking, estimates that it will receive at least one future deepwater port application in the next 10 years, based on the one entity that has expressed interest in submitting a new application. The Coast Guard is proposing changes to enhance the efficiency and timeliness of any future applications.

    18http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2014).pdf.

    Costs

    Table 3 details numerous proposed changes in the regulation with an assessment of the cost impacts of the change. These changes fall into the following categories:

    • May result in possible time or cost savings as they allow for greater flexibility in complying with existing requirements.

    • Clarify information to be submitted with the deepwater port application. These information requirements do not result in additional costs to industry as this information has been required under existing 33 CFR 148.107 in the past during application processing and review. Based on experience with each of the previous applicant reviews, the Coast Guard has consistently requested this information at some point in the processing of the application. The proposed regulatory changes clarify that the information is required up front to allow for the more timely review of the application, thus saving the applicant the time and expense of additional submissions.

    • Implementation may be optional.

    • Clarify the Coast Guard's existing need for certain additional information that it specifies during the license process and which the license applicant provides; the intended impact of the clarification is to notify the applicant that, in the interest of expeditious processing of the application, this information should be provided up front. As the information is already being provided, there is no new cost impact.

    • May be administrative and would not result in costs. Many of these changes clarify the relationship between various Federal agencies with responsibility for deepwater ports application, licensing, and review. These types of changes do not impose any behavioral changes by applicants of deepwater ports. These changes are labeled “Administrative,” described as clarifications, and will have no cost impact. Other “Administrative” proposed changes reword definitions or delete outdated references.

    Overall, Coast Guard has not identified additional costs associated with complying with the proposed rule, and sees potential for some minor cost savings. Table 3 provides a detailed list of the changes proposed by the Coast Guard. The changes with potential cost savings include the following:

    • Proposed § 148.8 allows an applicant to nominate a CE during the application processing phase. Currently, an applicant nominates a CE later in the application process. By allowing the nomination earlier, we believe that the applicants will have potential cost savings by identifying potential problems or challenges earlier in the process rather than later, when more work has been done on the application.

    • Proposed § 148.105 allows for equivalent means of certifying the accuracy of maps. Applicants have experienced delays when certified geologists were not available to certify the accuracy of maps. The Coast Guard had no alternative but to stop the clock, often delaying application processing by several months. The intent of this proposed revision is to permit the use of specialists who do not possess a professional certification, but are able to provide proof of equivalent technical expertise and experience, to certify work studies and reports required to satisfactorily process a deepwater port application. Allowing certifications by technical personnel possessing alternate credentialing will help to eliminate extensive delays in projects, waiting for expertise that is limited and in high demand. Also, proposed § 148.105 allows for the use of data older than 5 years under certain conditions. Use of older data could result in potential cost savings due to the avoidance of gathering new data.

    • Proposed § 148.214 allows for resubmission of a modified application without incurring a fee. Under the existing process, an application can be re-submitted after modification, but the applicant must pay the filing fee.

    • Proposed § 149.51 allows foreign-national engineers to submit design and construction plans on behalf of the licensee. The potential cost savings come from the flexibility of allowing the applicant to contract services from a larger pool of engineers. The applicant may have existing relationships with foreign engineers as the construction of LNG ports is multinational. Thus, the expertise of the foreign engineer may allow for more rapid review, greater institutional knowledge, and prior professional relationships which could result in potential cost savings.

    • Proposed § 149.52 allows for adoption of classification society standards. Many maritime companies rely on classification standards to satisfy insurance, safety management system (SMS), and other requirements. The Coast Guard's adoption of classification society standards eliminates the potential for duplicate effort. The Coast Guard recognizes that work already completed by a classification society can be used in the application process. An example is the APL submerged turret loading buoy system to import natural gas. The first natural gas deepwater port was Gulf Gateway, which used the APL submerged turret loading buoy system. There were no existing classification standards that addressed these types of ports or their components. Classification societies (American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and Det Norske Veritas (DNV)) had to develop standards as the post-licensing review and approval process was taking place. Additional review on the part of the Coast Guard to grant equivalency approvals for some major port components and systems (emergency alarms, shutoffs, etc.) caused some delays in schedule. The classification societies have developed a highly detailed body of information on the submerged turret loading buoy-type deepwater ports, as well as practical experience with the actual deepwater port operations. This information, adopted as classification society standards, will improve and expedite the post-licensing engineering review and approval process.

    • Proposed § 150.435 authorizes continuation of cargo transfer operations during an electrical storm. The potential cost savings derives from the ability to continue safe operations during certain electrical storms in accordance with the deepwater port's plans. The LNG port operators have stated that they cannot shut down operations during electrical storms as this will lead to potentially hazardous situations due to static electricity build-up.

    Table 3—Assessment of Impacts of the Proposed Rule Description of change Type of change Cost impact § 148.3 What Federal agencies are responsible for implementing the Deepwater Port Act? Clarify the Coast Guard's role as the lead agency responsible for preparing the environmental impact analysis under NEPA, compliance with NEPA and other relevant environmental laws, and matters relating to navigation safety and security, engineering and safety standards, and facility inspections Administrative: Clarification of existing role No cost. PHMSA is the Federal agency with jurisdiction over the construction and operation of pipeline components of a deepwater port Administrative: Clarification of existing authority of PHMSA No cost. Expands the description of responsibilities for the Coast Guard and cooperating Federal agencies Administrative: Clarification of existing authority of cooperating Federal agencies No cost. Delete the reference to an expired Interagency MOU between the Coast Guard and MARAD Administrative: Deletion of outdated reference No cost. § 148.5 How are terms used in this subchapter defined? Definition clarifies the requirements of a security plan's scope and contents and would align with 33 CFR subchapter H Administrative: Definition No cost. Definition specifies the components that comprise the flexible riser and umbilical portion of a STL buoy system Administrative: Definition No cost. Moved from § 149.5 Administrative: Move No cost. Definition clarifies that the operator of a deepwater port may be either the person who receives the license to operate (licensee), or the licensee's designated representative who is responsible for the day to day operation of the deepwater port Administrative: Definition No cost. Definition clarifies jurisdictional boundaries regarding Federal agency oversight of deepwater pipelines between the Coast Guard and PHMSA regarding oversight of deepwater port pipelines Administrative: Definition No cost. Definition clarifies that the PLEM includes the last downstream valve prior to the deepwater port pipeline Administrative: Definition No cost. Definition to account for a new proposed post-licensing requirement Administrative: Definition No cost. Moved from § 149.5 Administrative: Move No cost. Moved from § 149.5 Administrative: Move No cost. Definition distinguishes between deepwater ports that use STL buoys to affect cargo transfer and deepwater ports that use single point moorings for cargo transfer operations Administrative: Definition No cost. § 148.8 How are certifying entities designated and used for purposes of this subchapter? Allows the applicant to nominate a CE during the application processing phase in order to begin the technical review necessary for the approval of design, construction, installation, operation, maintenance and decommissioning plans for any proposed deepwater port Administrative: Provides flexibility in nominating CE earlier in process Possible time and cost savings. The CE can be nominated and chosen during MARAD evaluation period rather than waiting until after the ROD, allowing an earlier start to certification. The CE could begin a technical review during MARAD evaluation period to identify potential problems and solutions before work has progressed further on an application. § 148.105 What must I include in my application? Clarifies that MARAD, and not the Coast Guard, is the lead agency responsible for matters regarding the DWPA financial responsibility aspect of a deepwater port application Administrative: Clarification of MARAD and the Coast Guard's existing roles re: DWPA financial responsibility No cost. Removes and replaces “operator” with “licensee” as the responsible party for costs associated with removal of port components Administrative: Clarification of who is financially responsible party No cost. Clarifies that the applicant must provide with its application a completed consistency certification stating that the proposed deepwater port complies with each affected State's Coastal Management Program per 15 CFR part 930, subpart D Administrative: Clarification of need for consistency certificate to comply with existing Coastal Zone Management Program requirements No cost. Allows an applicant to provide an equivalent means of certifying the accuracy of the leasing maps or protraction diagrams, as an alternative to using a professional surveyor Administrative: Provides flexibility in means of certifying accuracy of maps and diagrams Possible time and cost savings. As the Coast Guard processed applications, it became aware of the limited availability of registered professional surveyors authorized to certify Outer Continental Shelf leasing maps or protraction diagrams. This resulted in delays in application processing. By allowing for equivalent means of certification, this proposed change would broaden the spectrum of persons who would be able to provide the necessary professional competency to certify the accuracy or correctness of the leasing maps or protraction diagrams, and minimize delays in application processing. Requires the site plan showing proposed anchorage and mooring areas to also include areas associated with construction and installation of deepwater port components (e.g., pipelaying) in addition to deepwater port operations Clarifies information needed to support application No cost. Information has been required from all past applicants. Clarifying information needed up front does not result in additional cost but instead helps prevent delays. Allow exceptions to 5-year limit on age of data for certain hydrographic data Administrative: Provides flexibility by allowing the use of data older than 5 years under certain circumstances Potential time and cost savings. The proposed change would allow the use of older data, with Coast Guard approval. Use of older information may result in costs avoided to develop new data. Requires an applicant to provide MetOcean data that includes prevailing winds, currents, waves and storm history in the affected area of the proposed deepwater port site Clarifies information needed to support application No cost. Information has been required from all past applicants. Clarifying information needed up front does not result in additional cost but instead helps prevent delays. Requires an applicant to provide vessel traffic data to support analysis of navigational safety and security hazards Clarifies information needed to support application No cost. Information has been required from all past applicants. Clarifying information needed up front does not result in additional cost but instead helps prevent delays. Clarifies that geological survey data includes not just soil analysis, but also the overall physical characteristics of the ocean bottom (e.g., soil mechanics) Clarifies information needed to support application No cost. Information has been required from all past applicants. Clarifying information needed up front does not result in additional cost but instead helps prevent delays. Formalizes the independent risk and consequence assessment process that has been customarily submitted as a supplement to the application Clarifies information needed to support application No cost. Formalizes existing process (information already submitted as a supplement). Requires the applicant to identify in the environmental evaluation section of the application a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action to include deepwater port location, pipeline routes and landfall locations (if applicable), construction methods, and deepwater port design and technologies used during operations Clarifies information needed to support application No cost. Information has been required from all past applicants. Clarifying information needed up front does not result in additional cost but instead helps prevent delays. Requires the applicant to include in the deepwater port application a request for a COA as defined at 33 CFR 158.120 or a request for waiver if compliance is impracticable or unreasonable Clarifies information needed to support application No cost. Information already compiled and submitted by all applicants to comply with MARPOL and APPS. § 148.107 What happens if I supplement my application? Allows for suspension of timeline if information required is not provided in a timely manner Administrative: Formalizes existing process for suspending timeline No cost. Existing process for suspending timelines already in use when applicable. Superseded Administrative: Removes and replaces with (d) and (e) No cost. Superseded Administrative: Removes and replaces with (d) and (e) No cost. Superseded Administrative: Removes and replaces with (d) and (e) No cost. Replaces (2) Administrative: Formalizes existing process for suspending timeline No cost. Replaces (3) Administrative: Formalizes existing process for suspending timeline No cost. § 148.125 What are the application fees? Adds environmental analysis as examples of costs for application and post-license review Administrative: Adding environmental analysis as example No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. Clarifies current practice when processing deepwater port applications that costs for environmental analyses must be paid by applicant prior to commencing operation of deepwater port. § 148.209 How is the application processed? Removes reference to outdated MOU Administrative: Removes reference to outdated MOU No cost. § 148.211 What must I do if I need to change my application? Formalizes process in the case of a significant change or required information Administrative: Formalizes existing process No cost. § 148.214 May I resubmit my application? Formalizes process for re-submittal of application. Allows for resubmission of application with no filing fee Administrative: Formalizes process to allow for re-submittal of application Potential cost savings. Formalizes process that allows for resubmission of modified application with no filing fee. § 148.217 How can a State be designated as an Adjacent Coastal State? States that MARAD determines whether a State should be considered an Adjacent Coastal State, and that MARAD, in consultation with the Coast Guard, would designate the Adjacent Coastal States Administrative: Clarifies respective duties of Coast Guard and MARAD No cost. § 148.228 What if a formal evidentiary hearing is necessary? Establishes procedures to be used for a formal evidentiary hearing Administrative: Provides procedures for existing hearings No cost. Removes (b)-(d) Administrative: Removes superseded requirements No cost. §§ 148.230 through 148.256 Removes Administrative: Removes superseded requirements No cost. § 148.276 What is the timeline for approving or denying an application? Describes timeline for action on a license including the publishing of a notice of application Administrative: Clarifies timing for publication of notice of application No cost. Describes MARAD public hearings in Adjacent Coastal States Administrative: Clarifies process for Adjacent Coastal State public hearings No cost. § 148.283 When may the application process be stopped and an application be treated as withdrawn? Clarifies that MARAD and Commandant will provide a joint written notice to the applicant of action taken under this section Administrative: Clarification of joint written notice procedure No cost. Clarifies when a suspended application is considered withdrawn Administrative: Substitutes “withdrawn” for “suspended” to describe when an application process is stopped No cost. § 148.405 What are the procedures for notifying the Commandant (CG-5P) of proposed site evaluation and pre-construction testing? Clarifies that BOEM guidelines for geological and geophysical surveys should be applied when the applicant plans to use bottom and sub-bottom acoustic profiling during deepwater port site evaluation and pre-construction activities Information for submission with application: Clarifies use of BOEM guidelines for certain data No cost. Does not add a new requirement, but clarifies what standards would be sufficient for the Coast Guard to properly evaluate an applicant's deepwater port site evaluation and pre-construction testing plans. Applicants currently use BOEM guidelines. § 148.605 What are the procedures under OPA 90 for adjusting a deepwater port's limit of liability under 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(2)? Clarifies that Coast Guard may lower the OPA 90 limit of liability for deepwater ports under 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(2) on a port-by-port basis, after evaluating oil spill risk and economic analyses Administrative: Clarifies process for existing authority for CG to lower the OPA 90 limit of liability for deepwater ports No cost. Explains process to lower oil spill liability limits. Requires no change of behavior. Discusses that the OPA 90 limit of liability of a deepwater port will not be reduced to less than $50 million, and may be increased following a reduction, as the Coast Guard deems appropriate, if the design, construction, or operation of the deepwater port changes, or if oil spill incidents related to the deepwater port, or to deepwater ports generally, indicate that a higher limit is needed Administrative: Sets minimum level for OPA 90 limit of liability adjustments and describes process for increases as appropriate No cost. Explains OPA 90 liability adjustments. Requires no change of behavior. Describes that requests for adjustments to the OPA 90 deepwater port limit of liability may be submitted with a license application or upon receipt of a license from MARAD to construct and operate the proposed deepwater port Administrative: Clarifies process for existing authority for CG to lower OPA 90 limit of liability No cost. Explains OPA 90 liability adjustments. Requires no change of behavior. Describes the contents of requests to adjust the limit of liability under 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(2), including a risk analysis of the deepwater port to determine its maximum most probable oil discharge and an economic analysis to determine the removal costs and damages of such a spill Additional Information: Lists information required to support an adjustment to liability No cost. The industry is currently required by OPA 90 to perform this risk analysis. § 148.707 What type of criteria will be used in an environmental evaluation and how will they be applied? (b) Expands the list of resource areas which will be considered in the environmental impact analysis to include, without being limited to, threatened species; marine protected areas; marine, coastal, and migratory birds; marine mammals; and fisheries Additional Information: Clarifies existing requirements for NEPA submissions No cost. The intent of this revision is to clarify that the existing NEPA and DWPA requirements must be met. This has always been required under NEPA and DWPA in order to develop and publish the EIS, and to initiate Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation w/NFMS & FWS. 148.715 How is an environmental review conducted? Adds the following to the existing list of factors: geographic relevance, age of data, and methods of data analysis Administrative: Specifies data already required and data quality for Coast Guard review No cost. § 148.737 What environmental statutes must an applicant follow? Removes the list of environmental statutes and executive orders and replaces it with a reference to the list on the Commandant Web site Administrative: Replaces list of statutes with reference to Web site so list can be kept current No cost. § 149.5 What definitions apply to this part? Moves to definitions section 148.5 Administrative: Moved No cost. § 149.15 What is the process for submitting alterations and modifications affecting the design and construction of a deepwater port? Contains procedures for preparation and submission of plans pertaining to design, construction and operation of the deepwater port, and the Coast Guard's review and approval of these proposed plans Administrative: Removed to § 149.54 No cost. § 149.20 What must the District Commander be notified of and when? Adds that the District Commander must be notified of the construction of a STL buoy Administrative: Clarifies existing practice by adding STL buoy No cost. Current industry practice that all STL buoy applicants notify District Commander. § 149.51 What construction drawings and specifications are required? Allows a foreign national engineer, possessing qualifications equivalent to those required in the United States for a professional engineer, to submit design and construction plans on behalf of the licensee Qualifications: Allows equivalent qualifications for foreign national engineer Potential cost savings due to flexibility. § 149.52 What are the design standards? Clarifies what the appropriate classification society requirements are for deepwater ports. This proposed change would be added to explicitly allow for the adoption of classification society standards generally used within the offshore industry that are at least equivalent to rules established by any recognized classification society recognized by the Coast Guard Classification standards: Allows the use of classification society standards as generally used within the industry Provides alternative for compliance that has potential cost savings due to use of existing industry classification society standards by recognizing work already completed by a classification society, eliminating the potential for duplicating effort. § 149.54 What is the process for submitting alterations and modifications affecting the design, construction, and operations of a deepwater port? Moved from another section Administrative: Moves existing text from other section No cost. § 149.57 What is the review and approval process for the design, construction, and commissioning for Deepwater Ports for operation? Provides standardization of the deepwater port commissioning process, ensures all levels of the Coast Guard with deepwater port responsibilities are appraised of a deepwater port's pending operational approval, and clarifies for the licensee the identity of the responsible Coast Guard official with daily operational oversight Administrative: Describes process, clarifies responsibilities No cost. Uses existing Coast Guard resources. § 149.58 What is the role of the certifying entity in the review and approval process for the design, construction, and commissioning for Deepwater Ports for operation? Describes the scope and duration of a CE's responsibility during each phase of design, construction, and operations, and would apply to all nominated CEs whether nominated under proposed § 148.8 or not Certifying entity: Describes scope and duration of CE responsibility No cost. Current industry practice. Clarifies the role of the technical contractor they have already been employing to develop the application to assume the role as CE for the design, construction, installation, and commencement of deepwater port operations. § 149.115 What are the requirements for pipeline end manifold shutoff valves? Revises to indicate that the PLEM's shutoff valve must be operable from a remote location because that capability must be available for operations on unmanned deepwater ports as well as during emergencies Equipment requirement: Pipeline end manifold's shutoff valve must be operable from remote location No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. Remotely-operated shutoff valves are already required to be installed on all currently active deepwater ports. (i.e., 49 CFR 193 (PHMSA) for LNG deepwater ports), as well as be designed and maintained in accordance with Classification Society Rules (ABS and DNV). § 149.206 What are the requirements for survival craft and rescue boats? Aligns the requirements for survival craft and rescue boats for manned deepwater ports with Coast Guard requirements for survival craft and rescue boats for MODUs in 46 CFR 108.520-108.575 Survival craft: Aligns requirements with MODU CFRs No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. LOOP is the only manned deepwater port and is currently equipped w/SOLAS-compliant survival craft, thus already complying with this regulation change. The cost for operating and maintaining these craft is already factored into port operational budget. Future manned deepwater ports are also expected to comply with SOLAS survival craft requirements. § 149.306 through 149.315. Removes sections Administrative: Removed No cost. § 150.10 What are the general requirements for operations manuals? To ensure operations manuals are subject to continuous review and reflect the deepwater port's actual operational profile, the Coast Guard proposes in § 150.10(e) to establish a 5-year cycle for the operator to re-submit the operations manual to the Commandant (CG-5P) to be re-reviewed and re-approved. This 5-year review cycle would coincide with the existing 5-year environmental baseline reassessment requirement found at § 150.15(bb) Operations manual: 5-year cycle to resubmit operational manual for review No cost. Formalizes current industry practice and recognizes established procedure. Deepwater port operators have been submitting their operations manuals on a 5-year cycle for nearly 10 years to comply with MTSA requirements, permits, and requirements from other Federal agencies. § 150.15 What must the operations manual include? Require that the operations manual include either the deepwater port's COA that certifies the deepwater port meets the requirements for reception facilities as required under 33 CFR part 158, or to include a waiver of the COA issued by the responsible Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority Operations manual: Specifies inclusion of existing COA in manual No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. Comprehensive audit program to ensure that the deepwater port operator has an approved and regularly reviewed deepwater port security plan. To help fulfill this verification requirement, the Coast Guard would implement an annual audit program for deepwater ports that would align with, and the report of audit results would be an attachment to, the annual self-inspection report that the operator is already required to provide to the responsible Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority as specified at § 150.105. This proposed requirement would allow the Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority to verify that the deepwater port operator has the necessary personnel and procedures in place to respond to a security incident in a manner that adequately protects the deepwater port, human health, and the environment Audit program for port security plan: Establishes a requirement for annual audit of port security plan. Results are submitted as attachment to existing annual self-inspection report No cost. The deepwater port security plan is a subset of the operations manual. As stated above, LOOP and the LNG deepwater port operators are already employing contractors to conduct and produce port security assessments and to update the operations and security plans as needed. This regulatory revision is formalizing what is current industry practice and meets the approval of the cognizant COTP. Establishes that the deepwater port security plan must be audited if there is a change in ownership or operations of the deepwater port, or if there have been modifications to the deepwater port Audit program for port security plan: Establishes requirement for audit of security plan if there is a change in ownership, operations or modification to the port No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. Existing Coast Guard deepwater port regulations (§ 150.15(x)) require the operator to maintain a security plan “comparable to part 106.” Part 106, in turn, requires the security plan to be audited annually and to be submitted to Coast Guard for re-approval every 5 years. No currently operating deepwater port has had more than annual audits. Limits the scope of audits of the port security plan to only those sections affected by the modifications Audit program for port security plan: Clarifies existing requirements in 106.415(b)(3) No cost. Clarifies existing requirements in 106.415(b)(3). Requires submittal of the proposed amendment to the cognizant Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority, with copy to the Commandant for review and approval Audit program for port security plan: Establishes process if audit results require amendment No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. Existing Coast Guard deepwater port regulations (§ 150.15(x)) require the operator to maintain a security plan “comparable to part 106.” Part 106, in turn, requires the security plan to be audited annually and to be submitted to Coast Guard for re-approval every 5 years. Establishes that the Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority will normally perform an annual security inspection to verify the findings in the audit. The Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority will perform a more detailed deepwater port security plan review at prescribed 5-year intervals following initial approval of the deepwater port security plan and will include onsite inspection of personnel assignments and qualifications, observance of security drills, and other security exercises as necessary Security plans: Establishes requirement for Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority to perform annual security inspection and 5-year security plan review No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. Existing Coast Guard deepwater port regulations (§ 150.15(x)) require the operator to maintain a security plan “comparable to part 106.” Part 106, in turn, requires the security plan to be audited annually and to be submitted to Coast Guard for re-approval every 5 years. Adopts the use of a formal PMMP. Currently, every licensed deepwater port has a PMMP as a condition of the MARAD-issued license by making the PMMP a requirement of the operations manual Operations manual: Requires that existing PMMP be incorporated as part of the operations manual No cost. Current industry practice as every deepwater port has a PMMP to get a license. This also harmonizes with MARAD requirements. Requires the operator to develop a manual that addresses deepwater port pipeline operations, maintenance and emergencies. This manual, which would be an appendix to the operations manual, would incorporate procedures that meet the requirements of PHMSA regulations Procedural manual for pipelines: Requires development of a procedures manual for pipelines incorporating existing PHMSA requirements No cost. Formalizes current industry practice and is also currently required as a condition of the MARAD-issued license for PHMSA approval. Has been submitted by all applicants for deepwater ports. § 150.25 When will the Coast Guard require amendments to the operations manual? Amends the regulation to clarify that if the responsible Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority determines that the licensee's proposed amendments to the operations manual are inadequate, the COTP may return the proposed amendments to the licensee for revision Administrative: Clarifies responsibility of Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority with respect to operations manual amendments No cost. Explicitly enables other Federal agencies to propose amendments of the operations manual to Commandant Administrative: Enables other Federal agencies to propose amendments to operations manual No cost. § 150.30 How may the licensee propose an amendment to the operations manual? Adds new paragraph (a) to state that the applicant must provide Commandant with a copy of the proposed amendment. Commandant would then notify MARAD prior to approval of significant changes to the deepwater port's operations Amendment to Operations Manual: Process for submittal and notification of amendment No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. These types of changes requiring Coast Guard review and approval are already routinely submitted electronically to Coast Guard. § 150.100 What are the requirements for inspecting deepwater ports? Adds new paragraph (b) to affirm that other Federal agency representatives may accompany Coast Guard personnel during an inspection of a deepwater port to verify compliance in those areas of operations over which each agency has jurisdiction Administrative: Clarifies that representatives from other Federal agencies can accompany Coast Guard personnel during an inspection No cost. § 150.105 What are the requirements for annual self-inspection? Revises the procedures for development and approval of a deepwater port self-inspection program by which deepwater ports may, prior to commencement of operations, submit a self-inspection program to the responsible Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority for consideration and approval Self-inspection Program: Clarifies existing procedures for development of self-inspection program No cost. Clarifies existing procedures for development of self-inspection program. Requires that the responsible Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority validate the results of each inspection. If the Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority determines the deepwater port is not operating in conformity with its operations manual or license, the Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority must direct appropriate corrective action and notify Commandant (CG-5P) and, if there is a possible violation of a license condition, notify MARAD Administrative: Clarifies procedures for validation of inspections No cost. § 150.107 What notice must be given in the event of inspections? Requires that the operator notify the responsible Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority when a Federal or State agency schedules an inspection, and retain the record of results of any Federal or State agency inspection, and make those records available for review upon request from the responsible Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority or his or her designated representative Notification of inspection: Operator must notify Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority of Federal or State inspection and retain records of inspections No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. These types of changes requiring Coast Guard review and approval are already routinely submitted to Coast Guard. § 150.110 What are the notification requirements upon receipt of classification society certifications? Requires that the deepwater port operator notify the responsible Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority of any changes to the deepwater port's classification status to ensure the deepwater port's operations are carried out in a manner that is safe for personnel and protective of the environment Notification of classification status: Operator must notify Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority of changes to classification status No cost. Formalizes current industry practice. These types of changes requiring Coast Guard review and approval are already routinely submitted to Coast Guard. § 150.225 What training and instruction are required? Ensures that all employees, regardless of status, receive basic safety training as soon as practicable after reporting to the deepwater port Training: Requires that all employees receive basic safety training No cost. Consolidates existing training requirements that are currently scattered throughout part 150. All deepwater ports currently require basic safety training for all crew and persons other than crew on deepwater ports. § 150.435 When are cargo transfers not allowed? Authorizes continuation of cargo transfers during an electrical storm in the vicinity of the deepwater port so long as the operations manual contains approved procedures, with which the deepwater port operator is in compliance, to ensure the safety of personnel, equipment and the environment Cargo transfers: Allows continuation of cargo transfers during electrical storms if certain procedures are used Potential cost savings due to flexibility in continuing operations. Also, LNG ports must maintain operations to avoid possible hazardous situations. § 150.830 Reporting a pollution incident. Requires that the person in charge report oil pollution incidents involving a deepwater port according to §§ 135.305 and 135.307 Notification of oil pollution incidents: Requires that person in charge report oil pollution incidents No cost. Already required in § 135.307. Benefits

    The benefits of the proposed rule are summarized below. See Table 4 for more detailed marginal benefit analysis.

    Part 148

    The main purpose of the revisions to 33 CFR part 148 in this proposed rule is to clarify the deepwater port application process. The roles of the Coast Guard, MARAD, BOEM, and other Federal agencies would be further clarified to insure applicants better understand the application process. The Coast Guard also proposed to revise the definitions used in parts 148, 149, and 150 to reflect actual operations.

    The benefits for 33 CFR part 148 would come from incorporating lessons learned from the history of deepwater port applications. The Coast Guard frequently finds that applications cannot be fully processed without time-consuming delays to obtain additional data from applicants. The result may require the Coast Guard to “stop the clock” on the application review process. This proposed rule will likely reduce the periods when the “clock is stopped,” and expedite the application process.

    Part 149

    The proposed changes in 33 CFR part 149 are mainly technical and administrative in nature to clarify the review and approval process. The proposed changes would allow for increased flexibility in the review and approval process and for certifying entities.

    Part 150

    The proposed changes to part 150 of Title 33 would consolidate operational requirements and codify current industry practice to improve understanding of, and compliance with, good operational practices.

    Table 4—Assessment of Benefits of the Proposed Rule Section Description of change Beneficial impact of change § 148.3 What Federal agencies are responsible for implementing the Deepwater Port Act? Describes Coast Guard's role as the lead agency responsible for NEPA compliance. Also describes the responsibilities of PHMSA and other federal agencies. Deletes reference to expired MOU Clarifies for applicant the roles and responsibilities of Coast Guard and other Federal agencies to enhance understanding of application process. § 148.5 How are terms in this subchapter defined? Administrative definitions and reorganization Clarification of various terms. § 148.8 How are certifying entities designated and used for purposes of this subchapter. Allows the applicant to nominate a CE during the application processing phase in order to begin the technical review necessary for the approval of design, construction, installation, operation, maintenance and decommissioning plans for any proposed deepwater port Possible time and cost savings. The CE can be nominated and chosen during the MARAD evaluation period, rather than waiting until after the ROD, allowing earlier start to certification. The CE could begin technical review during MARAD evaluation period to identify potential problems and solutions before work has progressed on a application. § 148.105 What must I include in my application? Various Administrative measures Clarifies roles of Coast Guard and MARAD, and who is a financially responsible party, and provides consistency with Coastal Zone Management Act procedures to enhance understanding of application process. § 148.105 What must I include in my application? Provides flexibility in means of certifying accuracy of maps and diagrams Possible time and cost savings. As the Coast Guard processed applications, it became aware of the unavailability of registered professional surveyors authorized to certify Outer Continental Shelf leasing maps or protraction diagrams. This resulted in delays in application processing. By allowing for equivalent certifications, this proposed change would broaden the spectrum of persons who could certify the accuracy or correctness of the leasing maps or protraction diagrams, and minimize delays in application processing. § 148.105 What must I include in my application? Allows use of data older than 5 years under certain circumstances Potential time and cost savings. The proposed change would allow the use of older data, with Coast Guard approval. Use of older information may result in costs avoided to develop new data. § 148.105 What must I include in my application? Specifies various information to be included with application Clarifies information to be included with the application to prevent “stopping the clock” if information is requested during application review. § 148.107 What happens if I supplement my application? Various Administrative changes, including formalizing existing process for suspending timeline Clarifies existing process and enhances understanding by removing outdated discussion. § 148.125 What are the application fees? Administrative change that adds environmental analysis as examples of costs for application and post-license review Clarifies the existing practice that environmental analysis costs are part of application and post-license review. § 148.209 How is the application processed? Administrative change that removes reference to outdated MOU Clarifies existing process by removing outdated references. § 148.211 What must I do if I need to change my application? Formalizes existing process in the case of a significant change or required information Clarifies existing process to enhance understanding of application process. § 148.214 May I resubmit my application? Formalizes process to allow for re-submittal of application Potential cost savings. The proposed change allows for the resubmission of an application after a modification with no filing fee. The existing process allows resubmission, but a filing fee for the re-submittal applies. § 148.217 How can a State be designated as an Adjacent Coastal State? Clarifies respective duties of Coast Guard and MARAD Clarifies existing process to enhance understanding of application process. § 148.228 What if a formal evidentiary hearing is necessary? Provides procedures for existing hearings and removes superseded requirements Clarifies existing process to enhance understanding of application process. §§ 148.230 through 148.256 Removes superseded requirements Clarifies existing process to enhance understanding of application process. § 148.276 What is the timeline for approving or denying an application? Describes timing for publication of notice of application and process for Adjacent Coastal State public hearings Clarifies existing process to enhance understanding of application process. § 148.283 When may the application process be stopped and an application be treated as withdrawn? Describes that MARAD and Commandant will provide joint written statement to the applicant of action taken under this section Clarifies existing process to enhance understanding of application process. § 148.405 What are the procedures for notifying the Commandant (CG-5P) of proposed site evaluation and pre-construction testing? Clarifies that BOEM guidelines for geological and geophysical surveys should be applied when the applicant plans to use bottom and sub-bottom acoustic profiling during deepwater port site evaluation and pre-construction activities Clarifies existing process to enhance understanding of application process. § 148.605 What are the procedures under OPA 90 for adjusting a deepwater port's limit of liability under 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(2)? Clarifies process for existing authority for Coast Guard to lower the OPA 90 limit of liability for deepwater ports; sets minimum level for OPA 90 limit of liability adjustments and describes process for increases as appropriate; lists information required to support an adjustment to liability Clarifies existing process to enhance understanding of application process. § 148.707 What type of criteria will be used in an environmental evaluation and how will they be applied? Clarifies existing requirements for NEPA submissions Clarifies information to be included with the Application to prevent “stopping the clock” if information is requested during application review. § 148.707 What type of criteria will be used in an environmental evaluation and how will they be applied? Deletes requirement to consider future environmental regulations as unreasonable Possible time and cost savings. Consideration of future environmental regulations time consuming and requires speculation. Allows focus on complying with existing regulations. § 148.715 How is an environmental review conducted? Adds the following to the existing list of factors: Geographic relevance, age of data, and methods of data analysis Clarifies information to be included with the application to prevent “stopping the clock” if information is requested during application review. § 148.737 What environmental statutes must an applicant follow? Replaces list of statutes with reference to Web site so list can be kept current Allows for easier update of list of statutes that applicant must follow. § 149.5 What definitions apply to this part? Moves to definition section 148.5 Administrative to enhance understanding of application process by consolidating definitions. § 149.20 What must the District Commander be notified of and when? Adds that the District Commander must be notified of the construction of a submerged turret loading (STL) buoy Clarifies existing requirement by adding STL. § 149.51 What construction drawings and specifications are required? Allows a foreign national engineer, possessing qualifications equivalent to those required in the United States for a professional engineer, to submit design and construction plans on behalf of the licensee Potential cost savings due to flexibility by allowing equivalent qualifications for foreign national engineer thereby avoiding potential delays. § 149.52 What are the design standards? Clarifies what the appropriate classification society requirements are for deepwater ports. This proposed change would be added to explicitly allow for the adoption of classification society standards generally used within the offshore industry that are at least equivalent to rules established by any recognized classification society recognized by the Coast Guard Potential cost savings due to use of existing industry classification society standards. § 149.54 What is the process for submitting alterations and modifications affecting the design, construction, and operations of a deepwater port? Moves existing text from other section Reorganizes text to enhance understanding. § 149.57 What is the review and approval process for the design, construction, and commissioning for Deepwater Ports for operation? Provides standardization of the deepwater port commissioning process, ensures all levels of the Coast Guard with deepwater port responsibilities are appraised of a deepwater port's pending operational approval, and clarifies for the licensee the identity of the responsible Coast Guard official with daily operational oversight Describes the review and approval process and clarifies responsibilities to facilitate understanding of the process. § 149.58 What is the role of the certifying entity in the review and approval process for the design, construction, and commissioning for Deepwater Ports for operation? Describes the scope and duration of a CE's responsibility during each phase of design, construction, and operations, and would apply to all nominated CEs whether nominated under proposed § 148.8 or not. (discussed previously under “B. Part 148, 2. Application Information and Review”) Clarifies scope and duration of CE's responsibility to enhance understanding of how the CE assists the application process. § 149.115 What are the requirements for pipeline end manifold shutoff valves? Revises to indicate that the pipeline end manifold's shutoff valve must be operable from a remote location because that capability must be available for operations on unmanned deepwater ports as well as during emergencies Clarifies existing requirements to improve ability to respond to emergencies and on unmanned facilities through the use of remote shutoff valves. § 149.206 What are the requirements for survival craft and rescue boats? Aligns the requirements for survival craft and rescue boats for manned deepwater ports with Coast Guard regulations for the survival craft and rescue boat requirements for Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODU) in 46 CFR 108.520-108.575 Enhances understanding by aligning requirements with MODU CFR. § 150.10 What are the general requirements for operations manuals? To ensure operations manuals are subject to continuous review and reflect the deepwater port's actual operational profile, the Coast Guard proposes in § 150.10(e) to establish a five-year cycle for the operator to re-submit the operations manual to the Commandant (CG-5P) to be re-reviewed and re-approved. This 5-year review cycle would coincide with the existing five-year environmental baseline reassessment requirement found at § 150.15(bb) Clarifies requirements for operations manual review to enhance understanding of process. § 150.15 What must the operations manual include? Specifies details of operations manual including inclusion of existing COA and existing PMMP. Describes the annual audit of deepwater port security plan and clarifies scope of audits audit to modification Potential time and cost savings. Streamlines approval by ensuring that manual meets existing COA, MTSA, and PMMP/PHMSA requirements. Requires development of a procedures manual for pipelines incorporating existing PHMSA requirements Establishes requirement for Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority to perform annual security inspection and 5-year security plan review § 150.25 When will the Coast Guard require amendments to the operations manual? Clarifies responsibility of Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority with respect to operations manual amendments and enables other Federal agencies to propose amendments to operations manual Enhances understanding of process by clarifying responsibilities of Coast Guard and other Federal agencies with regards to amendments to operations manual. § 150.30 How may the licensee propose an amendment to the operations manual? Adds new paragraph (a) to state that the applicant must provide Commandant with a copy of the proposed amendment. Commandant would then notify MARAD prior to approval of significant changes to the deepwater port's operations Enhances understanding of process by clarifying process for amending operations manual and notifying MARAD. § 150.100 What are the requirements for inspecting deepwater ports? Adds language that representatives from other Federal agencies can accompany Coast Guard personnel during an inspection Enhances understanding of process by clarifying that representatives from other Federal agencies can accompany Coast Guard personnel during an inspection. § 150.105 What are the requirements for annual self-inspection? Clarifies the existing procedures for development and approval of a deepwater port self-inspection program by which deepwater ports may, prior to commencement of operations, submit a self-inspection program to the responsible Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority for consideration and approval Enhances understanding of process by clarifying the existing procedures for developing and approving a self-inspection program. § 150.107 What notice must be given in the event of inspections? Operator must notify Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority of Federal or State inspection and retain records of inspections Formalizes current industry practice relating to notice of inspections. § 150.110 What are the notification requirements upon receipt of classification society certifications? Operator must notify Sector Commander or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority of changes to classification status Formalizes current industry practice relating to changes to classification. § 150.225 What training and instruction are required? Describes basic safety training requirements for all employees Clarifies existing regulatory requirements for basic safety training for all employees. § 150.435 When are cargo transfers not allowed? Allows continuation of cargo transfers during electrical storms if certain procedures are used Potential cost savings due to flexibility in continuing operations. Also, LNG ports must maintain operations to avoid possible hazardous situations. § 150.830 Reporting a pollution incident. Describes process for reporting oil pollution incidents Enhances understanding of process by clarifying existing regulatory requirements for reporting oil pollution incidents. B. Small Entities

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

    There are three entities that operate existing deepwater ports. LOOP is owned by a consortium of three multinational energy corporations. The owners/operators of LOOP are not small; therefore, LOOP exceeds the threshold for a small entity. Gulf Gateway and Northeast Gateway are wholly owned by the second entity, which exceeds the threshold for a small entity. The deepwater port Neptune LNG is wholly owned by the third entity, which exceeds the threshold for a small entity. The applicants of the five applications that were withdrawn also exceed the threshold for a small entity. We assume that any new deepwater port will not be a small entity given the history and requirements for a new deepwater port. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and size standards for these entities are found in Table 5.

    Table 5—NAICS Codes and Size Standard for Deepwater Port Operators Count of
  • companies
  • NAICS Code Size
  • standard
  • (employees)
  • 1 486110 Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil 1,500 1 424710 Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals 100 1 211111 Oil and Gas Extraction 500 2 221210 Natural Gas Distribution 500
    No not-for-profit organizations are involved with deepwater ports. Deepwater ports are beyond the boundary line and therefore beyond small government jurisdiction. This proposed rule will not have an adverse impact on small government entities.

    Therefore the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,19 we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult Mr. Kevin Tone, Deepwater Ports Standards Division (CG-OES-4), email [email protected], phone (202) 372-1441. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against the small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    19 Public Law 104-121.

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

    D. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 20 (PRA). Under OMB regulations implementing the PRA, “Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public” (5 CFR part 1320), “collection of information” means the obtaining, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to an agency of information by or for an agency by means of identical questions posed to, or identical reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements imposed on, ten or more persons. “Ten or more persons” refers to the number of respondents to whom a collection of information is addressed by the agency within any 12-month period and does not include employees of the respondent acting within the scope of their employment, contractors engaged by a respondent for the purpose of complying with the collection of information, or current employees of the Federal government. Collections of information affecting ten or more respondents within any 12-month period require OMB review and approval.

    20 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

    This proposed rule comprises deepwater port application, operation, and oversight procedures. The Coast Guard expects fewer than ten entities in the natural gas industry would be affected by this rule within any 12-month period because there are only four deepwater ports currently in operation, and the Coast Guard does not expect to receive ten or more applications in any future year because it has received only eight applications in the last five years combined. Thus, we expect to receive less than 10 applications per year; less than 10 submissions of design, construction, and equipment modification per year; and less than 10 proposals to amend approved Operation Manuals per year. Consequently, the number of respondents is less than the threshold of ten respondents per 12-month period for collection of information requirements under the PRA.

    E. Federalism

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

    Congress conferred rulemaking authority on the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate regulations to carry out the provisions of the DWPA. Relating to deepwater port licenses, 33 U.S.C. 1504(a) states that the Secretary “shall . . . issue regulations to carry out the purposes and provisions of [the DWPA] . . . Such regulations shall pertain to, but need not be limited to, application, issuance, transfer, renewal, suspension, and termination of licenses.” As noted above, when the Coast Guard was transferred to DHS, certain authorities and functions that were delegated to the Coast Guard while operating as a part of the Department of Transportation remained with the Coast Guard after its transfer to DHS. As such, the Coast Guard retained its delegated authority to establish the regulatory framework governing the application and licensing process of deepwater ports. Although Congress specifically provided for affected States to play a role in the licensing process of deepwater ports, the authorities exercised by the Coast Guard in this rulemaking do not involve those delineated State roles or responsibilities as they establish the licensing procedures themselves. Congress made clear in the language of the DWPA that the authority to establish licensing procedures was reserved to the Coast Guard and States may not regulate within this category. Therefore, the proposed rule is consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption requirements in Executive Order 13132.

    Additionally, the Coast Guard was granted the authority by Congress, through delegation, to issue regulations to improve safety in deepwater ports. 33 U.S.C. 1509(b) states that the Secretary “shall issue and enforce regulations with respect to lights and other warning devices, safety equipment, and other matters relating to the promotion of safety of life and property in any deepwater port and the waters adjacent thereto.” As this proposed rule revises provisions regarding the construction, design, equipment, and operation of deepwater ports, it falls within the scope of authority Congress granted exclusively to the Secretary. This authority has been delegated to the Coast Guard and is exercised in this rulemaking, and the States may not regulate within these categories of construction, design, equipment and operation for deepwater ports. Therefore, the proposed rule is consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption requirements in Executive Order 13132.

    While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of authority to issue regulations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that State and local governments may have in making regulatory determinations. Additionally, for rules with federalism implications and preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs agencies to consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking process. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section of this preamble.

    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 21 requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    21 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538.

    G. Taking of Private Property

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

    H. Civil Justice Reform

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

    I. Protection of Children

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

    J. Indian Tribal Governments

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

    K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that Order. Though it is a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866, it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.

    L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 22 directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

    22 Codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272.

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

    M. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under DHS Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,23 and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” section of this preamble. This action falls under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a) and involves regulations that are editorial or procedural, such as those updating or establishing application procedures. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    23 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f.

    List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 148

    Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental protection, Harbors, Petroleum.

    33 CFR Part 149

    Fire prevention, Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Occupational safety and health, Oil pollution.

    33 CFR Part 150

    Harbors, Incorporation by reference, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Occupational safety and health, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR parts 148, 149, and 150 as follows:

    PART 148—DEEPWATER PORTS: GENERAL 1. The authority citation for part 148 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1504; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 (75).

    2. Revise § 148.3 to read as follows:
    § 148.3 What Federal agencies are responsible for implementing the Deepwater Port Act?

    (a) Under delegations from the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Transportation, the Coast Guard and MARAD coordinate with each other in processing applications for the issuance, transfer, or amendment of a license for the construction and operation of a deepwater port.

    (b) The Coast Guard is responsible for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including, but not limited to, preparation of the appropriate environmental documents (Environmental Impact Statement, Environmental Assessment, and/or a State-required Environmental Impact Report) for each deepwater port license application. The Coast Guard also has authority over certain matters relating to navigation safety and security, engineering and safety standards and deepwater port inspections.

    (c) MARAD is responsible for issuing the Record of Decision to announce whether a license application is approved, approved with conditions, or denied, and for issuing, revoking, and reinstating deepwater port licenses. MARAD also has authority over the approval of fees charged by Adjacent Coastal States, and certain matters relating to international policy, civil actions, and suspension or termination of licenses.

    (d) The Secretary of Transportation has delegated to the Administrator of the Pipeline Hazardous Materials and Safety Administration (PHMSA) the authority to carry out the functions vested in the Secretary under section 21 of the Deepwater Port Act relating to the safe construction, operation, and maintenance of pipelines associated with deepwater ports.

    (e) The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for determining the fair market rental value of the subsoil and seabed of the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States to be used by the deepwater port, including, but not limited to, the fair market rental value of the right-of-way necessary for the pipeline segment of the port located on such subsoil and seabed. Any proposed subsuface storage of oil and gas in the submerged lands of the Outer Continental Shelf is also subject to the review and approval of the Secretary of the Interior. In order to minimize potential impacts to existing facilities and protect the development potential of nearby oil, gas, and mineral resources, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) should also be involved in the site selection process.

    (f) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other Federal agencies are designated as cooperating agencies and support the Coast Guard and MARAD in the review and evaluation of deepwater port license applications.

    3. Amend § 148.5 as follows: a. Add a definition in alphabetical order for “Accommodation module”; b. Revise the definition for “Construction”; c. Add definitions in alphabetical order for “Deepwater port”, “Deepwater port security plan”, “Engineering geological survey”, d. Remove the definition for “Engineering hydrographic survey”; e. Add in alphabetical order a definition for “Flexible riser and umbilical”; f. Revise the definition for “Lease block”; g. Add in alphabetical order definitions for “Major conversion” and “Marine Safety Unit (MSU) Commander”; h. Revise the definitions for “Marine site” and “Maritime Administration”; i. Add in alphabetical order a definition for “Mile”; j. Revise the definitions for “Operator” and “Person in Charge”; k. Add in alphabetical order definitions for “PIC” and “Pipeline”; l. Revise the definition for “Pipeline end manifold”; m. Add in alphabetical order a definition for “Prevention, monitoring and mitigation program”; n. Revise the definition for “Safety zone”; o. Add in alphabetical order a definition for “Service space”; p. Revise the definitions for “Single point mooring oil transfer system”; “Single point mooring natural gas transfer system”; q. Add in alphabetical order definitions for “Service space”, “Sleeping space”, and “Submerged turret loading buoy”; and r. Revise the definition for “Vessel”.

    The additions and revisions read as follows;

    § 148.5 How are terms used in this subchapter defined?

    As used in this subchapter:

    Accommodation module means a module with one or more accommodation spaces that is individually contracted and may be used for one or more facilities.

    Construction means any activity incidental to building, repairing, or expanding a deepwater port or any of its components, and includes but is not limited to supervision, inspection, actual building, fabrication, laying of pipe, pile driving, bulk heading, alteration, modification, commissioning, and additions to the deepwater port.

    Deepwater port. (1) Means any fixed or floating manmade structure other than a vessel, or any group of structures, located beyond State seaward boundaries that are used or are intended for use as a port or terminal for the transportation, storage, or further handling of oil or natural gas for transportation to or from any State, except as otherwise provided in the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as amended, and for other uses not inconsistent with the purposes of the Deepwater Ports Act, including transportation of oil or natural gas from the United States' OCS;

    (2) Includes all components and equipment, including pipelines, pumping stations, service platforms, buoy